On burning heretics

[sw85]

“Heretics” are burned at the stake today far more than ever, the fire the “faithful” now use are words, and the stakes are the internet forums!

Cute.

 

[Tsuwano]

Again - no heretic was allowably executed immediately. After two times of being asked to recant they were put to death not as a punishment of their own heresy but instead as a way to stop the spread of that heresy. This was true even in the Papal States who actually had their own “Executioner” the last of which was retired in the 1860’s. Granted it was mostly as a “decorative” position and not a practical one by that time but regardless. I’m not sure that it doesn’t adhere to Christ’s law as it is indeed quite loving to protect the souls of those who may be scandalized and corrupted by the evils of the heretic and the heresy that he propagates and perpetuates.

~ Pius :knight1:

I disagree whole heartedly with the last sentence of your post in the sense that it seems to legitimize executing heretics (or anyone else for that matter). Aum Shinrikyou, the terrorist religion founded by Shoko Asahara and which was responsible for releasing sarin gas on the Tokyo subway system in 1995, used this very same argument to defend their actions. They felt it best to defend innocent souls from the evil of the present world and that it was best for these souls to enter into eternity before losing their innocense, thus it was a kind and moral act to kill them before they lost their innocense. Jesus had the same opportunity to participate in the stoning of a sinful woman before she corrupted other souls, but he refused to do so. Instead he told her that he did not condemn her. The Church would have done better to follow the example of her Lord rather than give heretics over to the executioner for burning.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I disagree whole heartedly with the last sentence of your post in the sense that it seems to legitimize executing heretics (or anyone else for that matter). Aum Shinrikyou, the terrorist religion founded by Shoko Asahara and which was responsible for releasing sarin gas on the Tokyo subway system in 1995, used this very same argument to defend their actions. They felt it best to defend innocent souls from the evil of the present world and that it was best for these souls to enter into eternity before losing their innocense, thus it was a kind and moral act to kill them before they lost their innocense. Jesus had the same opportunity to participate in the stoning of a sinful woman before she corrupted other souls, but he refused to do so. Instead he told her that he did not condemn her. The Church would have done better to follow the example of her Lord rather than give heretics over to the executioner for burning.

You seem to take parts from what I say and ignore others. The very LARGE difference between the actions of Aum Shinrikyou and the morality of the actions of executing actual heretics is that the heretics would not:

A. Be killed en masse and in such an inhuman and indiscriminant way

B. Be killed immediately. As I have said before.

It is important to know that I am using Aquinas to backup my points. Also look to one of my previous posts, it uses Biblical sources to backup the punishment of heretics (though not explicitly execution.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[sw85]

You seem to take parts from what I say and ignore others. The very LARGE difference between the actions of Aum Shinrikyou and the morality of the actions of executing actual heretics is that the heretics would not:

A. Be killed en masse and in such an inhuman and indiscriminant way

B. Be killed immediately. As I have said before.

It is important to know that I am using Aquinas to backup my points. Also look to one of my previous posts, it uses Biblical sources to backup the punishment of heretics (though not explicitly execution.

~ Pius :knight1:

Not to mention, the act is qualitatively different in every way that matters: means, end, and intentions.

For the execution of a heretic to be legitimate, it must be the case that (a) he was actually guilty of heresy, (b) all lesser means of preventing the spread of heresy had failed, (c**) the means are proportionate (i.e., he is not subjected to a needlessly gruesome or agonizing death, and his corpse is not desecrated afterward), (d) the intention is pure and good, i.e., to save souls from the corrupting influence of heresy.

It seems there is a half-resemblance between Christian reasoning and the fevered delusions of some Asian consequentialists on one point only (point ‘d’). That stands to reason – even false religions exhibit some slim sliver of the good, or else no one would participate in them. It does NOT stand to reason the acts are thereby morally identical. That is simply a lack of intellectual seriousness.

 

[sw85]

As for Jesus on the adulteress, bear in mind the group of people who were threatening to stone the adulteress were a Pharisaic mob, not representatives of the (Roman) rule of law. Thus what He condemned was not capital punishment in principle but mob “justice.”

And it’s also worth noting that the Sermon on the Mount is likewise limited in scope. From Joe Carter (an evangelical):

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus places an even greater restriction on the lex talionis: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt. 5:38-39)

This is a radical limitation on what was once considered an individual right to justice. The passage is both inspiring and intimidating; the very thought of living such a life is humbling.

But we should carefully note what Jesus didn’t say in this passage. What he left out of the verse he quoted is as important as what he included. Exodus 21:23-24 states: “If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, . . .”

Notice that Jesus starts quoting at “eye for an eye” instead of “life for life.” Murder was not, nor had it ever been, a matter of individual vengeance—that is, an issue that can be adjudicated under tort law. When a person commits murder they are committing an offense against God himself and not against a mere individual, his family, or even society. Jesus’ command only applies to individual vengeance; it does not abrogate God’s command in the Noahic covenant.

Finally, Carter also raises an important issue: if the death penalty is universally wrong in principle, how is it Christ’s death was able to accomplish anything?

 

[masuwerte]

As a husband and father of Catholics, I see many things that I admire in Catholic teaching. One of these - I think it’s in your catechism someplace - is the principle that one must never do evil so that good may result. A good end cannot justify a sinful means. I’ll concede that there’s a certain logic (from your perspective) in supresing (sp?) heresy by killing the heretics, but I think the end doesn’t justify the means.

 

[severus68]

As for Jesus on the adulteress, bear in mind the group of people who were threatening to stone the adulteress were a Pharisaic mob, not representatives of the (Roman) rule of law. Thus what He condemned was not capital punishment in principle but mob “justice.”

And it’s also worth noting that the Sermon on the Mount is likewise limited in scope. From Joe Carter (an evangelical):

Finally, Carter also raises an important issue: if the death penalty is universally wrong in principle, how is it Christ’s death was able to accomplish anything?

You quote someone for the death penalty, and of coursehe would find support from the Bible using his interpretation. The greatest good has come from Christ’s death. That is no justification of the death penalty, scourging of convicts or conviction of the innocent.

 

[severus68]

Not quite. Read that carefully (and preferably not from wikipedia). The maid baptized the boy when he was a sick infant. He could not possibly protest and was under the age of reason I believe anyway. It was not an involuntary baptism by any means and the law of the Papal States said that no Catholic could be raised by a Jewish family. This wikipedia article seems particularly slanderous, as well. Edgardo Martara would go on to be a fine Catholic Priest and visited his family often. Plus during the Piedmontese seizure of Bologna, the Mortara’s were safely escorted to Rome.

You make it seem as if the Holy Father did something unlawful and obscenely unethical. It most certainly wasn’t unlawful, and in my opinion it wasn’t unethical. They could have also gotten their son back if they had converted, but that wasn’t forced as they didn’t convert anyway and received no penalty.

~ Pius :knight1:

What was done was very wrong and the wrong message about Christianity/Catholicism was given. Why should his parents have had to convert to keep their son?

 

[severus68]

As a husband and father of Catholics, I see many things that I admire in Catholic teaching. One of these - I think it’s in your catechism someplace - is the principle that one must never do evil so that good may result. A good end cannot justify a sinful means. I’ll concede that there’s a certain logic (from your perspective) in supresing (sp?) heresy by killing the heretics, but I think the end doesn’t justify the means.

I agree, the ends cannot justify the means. That kind of logic is perverse logic taking Christ and His teachings as a standard.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Not quite. Read that carefully (and preferably not from wikipedia). The maid baptized the boy when he was a sick infant. He could not possibly protest and was under the age of reason I believe anyway. It was not an involuntary baptism by any means and the law of the Papal States said that no Catholic could be raised by a Jewish family. This wikipedia article seems particularly slanderous, as well. Edgardo Martara would go on to be a fine Catholic Priest and visited his family often. Plus during the Piedmontese seizure of Bologna, the Mortara’s were safely escorted to Rome.

You make it seem as if the Holy Father did something unlawful and obscenely unethical. It most certainly wasn’t unlawful, and in my opinion it wasn’t unethical. They could have also gotten their son back if they had converted, but that wasn’t forced as they didn’t convert anyway and received no penalty.

~ Pius :knight1:

How could the infant Mortara voluntarily agree to be baptized if he could not consent, i.e. make an informed choice? He was baptized, but it wasn’t voluntarily.

I haven’t contended that PPIX did anything unlawful according to the laws of the Papal States. That’s the pity and lesson of this sordid episode – this is what can result when religions have temporal powers.

If you think that the kidnapping of Edgardo Martara and the attempted coerced conversion of Mortara’s parents were ethical acts, then I can only hope that other Catholics are being instructed very differently than you have apparently been.

 

[Nate13]

I agree, the ends cannot justify the means. That kind of logic is perverse logic taking Christ and His teachings as a standard.

Killing is not evil. Murdering is evil. Murder is the unjustified killing of another person. The thing in question here is what are considered justifiable reasons to kill someone? The idea of self-defense is one most people can agree upon. If someone is coming after you with the intent to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself even if that means you have to kill the other person before he can kill you or someone you are tasked with protecting.

This line of thinking is what follows towards the killing of heretics. In the Church’s eyes and the State’s eyes the heretics might as well as been lifting up a sword to take the lives of the people that the Church and State were tasked with protecting.

The question is were there other available options the Church should have sought to use instead of killing the heretics that could have been employed in defending the lives of the people they were tasked with defending?

 

[francisca]

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

Dakota,

I would say that I am happy that I live in an era where each person’s right to speak their mind is respected. Moreover the church has chosen to follow the path of religious freedom, and forbid anyone to use religious reason to legitimize killing of others. Otherwise the evil one may use religion in order to trick our mind into thinking that “it’s alright to kill anyone who disagree with MY religion”.

Having said those points, let’s see what Jesus said about your question above:

Luke 17:

1. Jesus said to his disciples, "Scandals will necessarily come and cause people to fall; but woe to the one who has brought it about.
2. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around the neck. Truly this would be better for that person than to cause one of these little ones to fall.

if somebody refuse to repent and moreover willfully spreading heressy, causing “little ones” to fall, then Jesus opinion was that “it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with millstone around his neck”. Do you agree with His opinion? It’s OK if you disagree, cause you are allowed to have your own opinion, so Jesus was and is still allowed to have His. Agree?

 

[karaleigh]

More so, we can see that Aquinas cited 1 Corinthians 5:5 which states “To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” and Galatians 5:9 which states “A little leaven corrupts the whole lump.”. Biblical support for punishment of heretics is there or atleast, our awareness of heresy in our world. ~ Pius :knight1:

True.

I could easily see where the 1 Corinthians excerpt might well be the suggestion of burning to save the soul from Satan…the prodigy of baptism in Ps. 66:10 spirit, water, and fire, as well as, Daniel 11:35 purge, purify, refine, as examples to the defense of burning. The question with 1 Corinthians is whether this sermon is a defense of the original law or simply a statement to the exception to the exclusion of the law’s use during that era.
And, Matt. 13:38-40 "The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.” Galatians fits well in my lifestyle…“blessed are those who have not seen Me and believe”.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[karaleigh]

You are correct to a certain extent. Yes, it would appear that Muslims believe the body should be whole. I would think that there may be practical problems like amputation when diseased or for theft. There are a few Muslim states who try to impose Sharia penalties for crime and those are basically what are in the OT. There is only one state where Jews are in power and the people have chosen not to make it an orthodox Jewish state. If Israel wanted to go back in time and impose strict Jewish laws, it would basically be what’s in the OT. My views.

True. If memory serves me, a Quaran author does say to behave righteously as both crime and disease could cost them their salvation to the afterlife…I can’t cite this. In the Book of Daniel, the fiery furnace tale, clearly shows burning wasn’t considered as realistic for man…from heaven patriarchs came to usher Daniel from the fire. Recorded witnesses said Daniel wasn’t burnt or his clothes scorched. My point is, though burning was suggested as a capital punishment in Mosaic Law, in reality, it was never used, including the witnessed stories of Daniel’s patriarchial salvation from that death by burning. Much more Muslim then Jewish.

 

[Roy5]

A couple quick thoughts

1. I am grateful that CAF permits the expression of controversial and possibly ‘heretical’ views. Otherwise, I’m quite sure that my postings would have been banned a long time ago. The Church needs honest, open dialogue. I am old enough to remember when the Index was still enforced. I would try to get a controversial book in a Catholic college library, and it often wasn’t there - even great books. If it was there it was ‘caged’, and to see it I had to get permission from a priest. Thank God those days are behind us.

** 2. Absolutely nothing justifies or ever justified burning heretics!** The whole concept is obscene. I’m shocked that there are posters who defend such a vile and evil practice. The notion that there should be ‘no freedom’ to believe error is scary or worse.

** 3. I find no evidence in the Bible that Mary Magdalene was the woman in the New Testament about to be stoned**. In fact, I think that the popular notion that Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute has been refuted by many reputable scholars. Some Pope (I forget which one) popularized this error centuries ago.

** 4. Much of Islamic law reflects Old Testament law much more so than the Sermon on the Mount.** Re-read, for example, Ex. 22:18, 20 - kill witches and kill any who worship a false God. Or, parts of Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23. A man actually could sell his daughter! Wow! This stoning to death in Islam seems to have been taken from the Torah. Jesus, of course, said: “You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you…” By the way, have you been following news out of Israel about Orthodox Jews trying to force women to sit in the back of buses, harrassng others because they are immodestly dressed, etc?

** 5. So, evil means don't justify striving toward good ends?** I've wondered about that over the years. As a college student I hitchhiked across western Europe soon after World War II and saw the horrendous destruction, especially in such German cities as Dusseldorf, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin, etc. What an eye-opener! It just about made me into an overnight pacifist. How many millions was it - 50 million or more, mostly civilians - who were slaughtered during that war? I still haven't resolved my feeling on this question. The goal - defeating Hitler - certainly was admirable. Did that goal justify our means?

** God bless everybody**. No exceptions. Let us make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Matt. 25:31ff. A reading that reminds us what priorities lie at the very heart of the gospel.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, to note that people could have had ‘pure intentions’ when they did an action that in our modern times seems evil doesn’t necessarily mean that we ourselves support the action.

It means that the people of the time, using the best brains, the greatest prayer, the greatest study etc., thought that the solution . . .by what was KNOWN AT THE TIME. . . was right and just.

Let’s take some similar examples.

How about the plague? We know NOW that the plague was spread by fleas who infested merchantile goods.

But back then, all that people knew was that if a person developed plague symptoms, they were extremely infectious and that entire cities could be wiped out by ONE sick person.

So what did they do? They ISOLATED the sick persons. You might have found some brave souls (usually religious friars or priests) who would come and stay and tend to the people, but most of the time, a person who was ill was summarily ‘thrown’ into some primitive shelter and ‘waited it out.’ Not everybody who caught the plague died though mortality rates were very high. And usually if you survived it, you’d be immune to further outbreaks.

Thing is, to our ‘enlightened’ eyes, the ideas of isolation and pretty much abandoning the sick looks pretty rotten.

You can go back even further with leprosy. . .nowhere near as contagious but lepers were strictly isolated. . .for the good of the community as far as people knew.

Now do you go around castigating our ancestors as heartless selfish murderers for ‘abandoning’ the sick victims or the lepers, or do you accept that for the TIMES they did the best they could, that there were in fact those who ‘went a little farther’ and that as time went on and we developed better understanding, we were able to change our ways of treatment?

It’s not that the plague suddenly got less scary or more treatable, you see. . .it’s that the whole concept of how we treat our fellow humans grew more, um, humane. Of course it goes in cycles. . .because nowadays we treat the least of our brothers and sisters (the unborn) like garbage, killing them right and left without a word of apology. . .in fact, some don’t even think it’s killing at all!

And so while I for one am glad that as we listened to the Holy Spirit we grew in understanding of our brothers’ SPIRITUAL ills and advanced in treating them, I’m sorry that in some of our technological ‘advancements’ we are IGNORING the Spirit and treating the unborn wretchedly.

We are by no means on the ‘moral high ground’ when it comes to looking at the 16th century Christians (Catholic AND PROTESTANT) who to the best of their knowledge were trying to ‘cure the soul’. . .when we today (Catholic and Protestant) know better but for all kinds of ‘expediencies’ try to kill the souls AND bodies of those who ‘interfere’ with our almighty selves in any way.

 

[severus68]

Killing is not evil. Murdering is evil. Murder is the unjustified killing of another person. The thing in question here is what are considered justifiable reasons to kill someone? The idea of self-defense is one most people can agree upon. If someone is coming after you with the intent to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself even if that means you have to kill the other person before he can kill you or someone you are tasked with protecting.

This line of thinking is what follows towards the killing of heretics. In the Church’s eyes and the State’s eyes the heretics might as well as been lifting up a sword to take the lives of the people that the Church and State were tasked with protecting.

The question is were there other available options the Church should have sought to use instead of killing the heretics that could have been employed in defending the lives of the people they were tasked with defending?

This is the line of thinking that extremist Muslims take. It is one thing to take up a sword against someone coming at you with a sword, it is quite another to take up a sword against someone coming at you with words, so to say.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

How could the infant Mortara voluntarily agree to be baptized if he could not consent, i.e. make an informed choice? He was baptized, but it wasn’t voluntarily.

Correct, it wasn’t voluntary - but it couldn’t be regardless. He was an infant. That is similar to saying that every infant baptism is involuntary. Mortara wasmortally (deathly) ill. And the fourteen year old maid of the Mortara’s baptized in fear of his soul. There was nothing wrong with that - at all. And I would do the same in her case.

This reminds me of a similar story of General Lamoriciere who was a high ranking officer in the Pontifical Army during the Risorgimento. However, years previous, he was a soldier in Algeria fighting for (I think) the French. His cavalry unit assaulted an enemy town and upon seeing a young boy mortally wounded picked him up and galloped to a spring of water and baptized the boy before he finally expired.

I haven’t contended that PPIX did anything unlawful according to the laws of the Papal States. That’s the pity and lesson of this sordid episode – this is what can result when religions have temporal powers.

I bolded the part that I felt was a bit odd. This can happen in any society so I feel you are unfairly using this to support some agenda against Temporal powers. The Papal States were an example to the rest of Europe and to Christendom in general. The laws were those of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. So by criticizing the laws of the Papal states as being potentially “sordid” or unethical, you are saying the same of the laws of the Church. So naturally, I am a bit confused.

If you think that the kidnapping of Edgardo Martara and the attempted coerced conversion of Mortara’s parents were ethical acts, then I can only hope that other Catholics are being instructed very differently than you have apparently been.

The bold is where I must get a bit defensive.

Firstly, I research this by myself. I was baptized when I was eight years old (upon my own choosing) and had very limited catechesis.

Secondly, The “kidnapping” of Edgardo Mortara (though it was absolutely nothing of the sort) was perfectly ethical as the boy was a Catholic living in a Catholic state being raised by non-Catholic parents. Naturally, for the good of his soul he should have been brought up in a Catholic family so as he could be properly instructed in the Faith

What was done was very wrong and the wrong message about Christianity/Catholicism was given. Why should his parents have had to convert to keep their son?

As I said in my response above, the Mortara’s were asked to convert so their son could be raised a Catholic as he was now, willingly or unwillingly, baptized into the Church and thus a Catholic. It may have given a wrong message of Christianity but that is of no fault of the Papal States or Pius IX or the maid that baptized him. It was instead the fault of the media who twisted it into something treacherous and anti-Jewish. In otherwords - something it was not.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Vouthon]

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.

My, my - it seem that we have crossed paths again my friend How lovely to see you again! Are you saying that a “Catholic” society would have the right to prosecute, convict and even execute people for their own private beliefs? If so I find this truly abhorrent and an offense to the freedom of the will and the sanctity of the human conscience, which none should be allowed to compel with force and violence.

Prior to the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church - as a general rule - did not allow states to suppress ‘heresy’ using intimidation or execution. Such punishments had many ecclesiastical opponents, so such a system did not exist in Catholic theology. To provide you with an example, in 350 the first execution for heresy took place (it was orchestrated by secular authorities) but the decision to execute the person was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, by the Pope, St Ambrose and St Martin of Tours. Most theologians saw punishment for ‘heresy’ as therepuetic not punitive - Christians believed that you could not force somebody to change their mind. God had given them freewill after all. Killing a heretic was viewed by the Catholic Church as a defeat; the sinner would be lost for all eternity and Christians would have to live on with the guilt of that person’s damnation forevermore. To elucidate the viewpoint of this period, John Chrysostom (d407) one of the greatest of the Church Fathers wrote, “To kill a heretic is to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime”.

This mindset persisted well into and after the age of Muhammad. While in the Islamic world in the later half of the First Millenium men like Al-Hallaj were being tortured and executed for being Sufis, for committing ‘heresy’ under the Abbassid Caliphate, the Christian World was at that time far more morally advanced on the heresy-hunting front. In 827, an order to secure the loyalty of his administration, al-Ma’mun instituted the Mihna, the Islamic inquisition. If anyone left Islam they were executed, as demanded by the Sharia Law of the Hadiths. Islam had become corrupted by this time and still is in many respects to this day.

Punishment for heresy was unknown until around the 12th century, when religious fervour was on the rise. However in these times execution and torture were still not the method used on the whole against heretics. The Church sought to combat heresy, such as the Albigensians and Waldenses, using passive, non-violent means. For example, St Francis of Assisi and many others used evangelical poverty and preaching, to try and show groups such as Albigensians - who believed that the material world was ruled by an evil God, that there were thus two Gods and not one - through example and not co-ercion. The Church tried to combat heresies through legislation and by sending preachers to teach them. Regrettably in the 12th century, to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics by secular governments became more frequent - and the Church became more willingly to endorse this status quo.

Combatting heresy is a matter for the ecclesiastical, religious sphere only not the secular sphere. Heresy cannot possibly be a “crime” under secular, positive law.

 

[sw85]

As a husband and father of Catholics, I see many things that I admire in Catholic teaching. One of these - I think it’s in your catechism someplace - is the principle that one must never do evil so that good may result. A good end cannot justify a sinful means. I’ll concede that there’s a certain logic (from your perspective) in supresing (sp?) heresy by killing the heretics, but I think the end doesn’t justify the means.

What Catholic moral theology teaches is that the end ALONE does not justify the means (which is usually what is meant by the statement “the ends don’t justify the means”). That is consequentialist thinking and rightly condemned.

But if the end is good, the intention is pure, and the means are proportionate, there is no evil done. What I have argued throughout this thread is that when the intention is to protect people from heresy and execution is an absolute last resort, then no evil is done – since the end of shielding the people from soul-destroying heresy is ALWAYS good in itself.

You quote someone for the death penalty, and of course he would find support from the Bible using his interpretation. The greatest good has come from Christ’s death. That is no justification of the death penalty, scourging of convicts or conviction of the innocent.

His being for the death penalty does not cast suspicion on his argument.

It is not a question of whether or not good came from Christ’s death. Christ took our sins upon himself and paid the price for all of us. Such is not possible if death is not a valid retribution for sin.

A couple quick thoughts

1. I am grateful that CAF permits the expression of controversial and possibly ‘heretical’ views. Otherwise, I’m quite sure that my postings would have been banned a long time ago. The Church needs honest, open dialogue.

No, it doesn’t. It needs obedience, that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it – not the backstabbing of the laity and clergy alike.

I am old enough to remember when the Index was still enforced. I would try to get a controversial book in a Catholic college library, and it often wasn’t there - even great books. If it was there it was ‘caged’, and to see it I had to get permission from a priest. Thank God those days are behind us.

Yes! Thank Heaven the cursed days are past when it was marginally more difficult to get your hands on a book! Now we have emerged into the light when we can read the Communist Manifesto and butcher our children without consequence!

** 2. Absolutely nothing justifies or ever justified burning heretics!** The whole concept is obscene. I’m shocked that there are posters who defend such a vile and evil practice. The notion that there should be ‘no freedom’ to believe error is scary or worse.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

You have no argument, just sputtering, futile rage, born of modernist insanity. And when challenged to provide an argument, you REPEATEDLY resort to reasserting the exact same claim mingled with indignation. If you have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion you may as well go away.

** 3. I find no evidence in the Bible that Mary Magdalene was the woman in the New Testament about to be stoned**. In fact, I think that the popular notion that Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute has been refuted by many reputable scholars. Some Pope (I forget which one) popularized this error centuries ago.

What is your point?

** 4. Much of Islamic law reflects Old Testament law much more so than the Sermon on the Mount.** Re-read, for example, Ex. 22:18, 20 - kill witches and kill any who worship a false God. Or, parts of Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23. A man actually could sell his daughter! Wow! This stoning to death in Islam seems to have been taken from the Torah. Jesus, of course, said: “You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you…” By the way, have you been following news out of Israel about Orthodox Jews trying to force women to sit in the back of buses, harrassng others because they are immodestly dressed, etc?

Again, what is your point?

This is the line of thinking that extremist Muslims take. It is one thing to take up a sword against someone coming at you with a sword, it is quite another to take up a sword against someone coming at you with words, so to say.

Your appeal to bigotry is unbecoming. The Muslims do a far better job staying loyal to their half-wrong conception of God revealed by their fallible scriptures and false prophet than we do to our completely-correct conception of Him as revealed by our infallible scriptures and His son.

No one is talking about “taking up a sword against someone coming at you with words” as if we were talking about forming mobs and butchering everyone in the streets we happen to dislike. What is being said is that as a MORAL PRINCIPLE the state has the right and duty to protect souls from heresy; that this naturally extends to the right and duty to criminalize heresy; and that Catholic moral teaching DOES NOT exclude recourse to the death penalty in cases in which all lesser punishments fail to deter the unjust heretical aggressor. What about this is objectionable?