On burning heretics

[Roy5]

Swiss guy

I guess I must not be part of the choir. I am firmly convinced that church and state should be separate, for the welfare of both. There should be no state religion, whether we're talking about England or Sweden, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or USA.

Besides, I don't believe there is any one true religion. Even Paul said hat 'we see through a glass darkly...." Too often the Church preaches humility, peace and love while embracing ideas that lead to arrogance, conflict and bitterness.

I believe it was Harry Emerson Fosdick who said that "I can only believe in a God that I cannot understand." We live in a mammoth, mysterious, miraculous and marvelous universe, with maybe a million solar systems. To argue that any religion had a serious handle on all this is simplistic. Scripture calls us to walk by faith, not by knowledge. Our faith is in God not in any church or book. We can look to them for guidance, but the deeper meaning of life and the world is well beyond that church or that book. I am satisfied to put my trust in the Almighty, seek to live by the Sermon on the Mount, and resist the notion that my religious tribe is superior to all the other such tribes. 

 God provided us with a brain. How could he possibly punish us because we used that brain and thought for ourselves? I enjoy Bible Study groups where participants feel free to think for themselves, and this naturally leads to different perspectives. No notion of heresies or heretics. Praise God! 

  I'm sure that one important influence on my thinking is my mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage. It seems so silly to say that one side is right and the other wrong. There are wonderfully devout followers of Christ 'on both sides' and there is something obscene and certainly unChristian when we stand in judgement on one another. Matt. 7:1-2

  We're not saved by doctrine. Re-read the Parable of the Good Samaritan plus Matt. 25:31ff. Nothing about doctrine or church connection there, Now abide faith, hope and love. Which is the greatest? I Cor. 13:13.

 

[severus68]

[QUO

TE=sw85;8777834]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.

What happened to the God given free will and choice? What about Christ’s anti violence teachings?

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.

It does mean that he has an agenda - to support his position.

Christ did not commit any sin and so I cannot undertand how your analogy works.

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.

Please do not equate Christianity to extremist Islam. I am stating a basic truth. Live in the safety of the US, call me a bigot and praise Muslims. Try living in an Islamic state where Sharia law is imposed.

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?

I am against the death penalty and I am perfectly entitled as a Catholic to take that position.

I am so glad there is no Catholic state where extremists, holier than holy people will take power. We have seen and can see the effects of religion in government.

 

[Tsuwano]

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:

Yes, in my post I admitted that I am taking aim at the final sentence you wrote in your last post precisely because it seems to give license to those who would burn heretics in order to protect innocent souls from the errors of the heretics, so you’re correct when you say that I am only taking exception to a part of your post. As for the rest of your post, you seem to be stating historical facts which I have not checked for myself, but which I am willing to accept your word on. I would agree that there is some difference in the situations concerning the Aum Shinrikyou terrorist attacks in Tokyo and the Church sactioning of the burning of heretics in medieval Rome, but not where morality is concerned. Both strike me as failures of morality, no matter what the lofty intentions may have been and no matter whether heretics were not burned enmasse (though I think the historical record could prove otherwise . . . many Protestants were murdered enmasse) or whether they were killed immediately (again, I think the historical record could prove otherwise). I acknowledge your bow to St. Thomas Aquinas, but would hope that you would recognize that the example I offered concerning the refusal of Jesus to condemn the woman caught in adultery, even though he must have been aware that her sin could possibly “infect” others she came in contact with, is taken from the Gospels. Where Jesus did not condemn or participate in the execution of a woman rightly condemned by the law, neither should the Church have participated in the execution of heretics though they also were rightly condemned by law. Is the Church greater or holier than her master? The Church acted immorally in burning human beings at the stake and I thank God we have moved beyond such sin and presently act in greater compliance with the teaching of our Lord.

 

[John21652]

Swiss guy

I guess I must not be part of the choir. I am firmly convinced that church and state should be separate, for the welfare of both. There should be no state religion, whether we're talking about England or Sweden, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or USA.

Separation of Church and State is of fairly recent development. It was the close alliance of Church and State that built our great western civilisation. Strange that some now think we no longer need one of the west’s great pillars.

Besides, I don’t believe there is any one true religion. Even Paul said hat 'we see through a glass darkly…" Too often the Church preaches humility, peace and love while embracing ideas that lead to arrogance, conflict and bitterness.

St. Paul also helped found “the Church”, not a multitude of churches built on hubristic biblical scholarship. Your claim that the Church embraces ideas that lead to arrogance, conflict and bitterness would be better aimed at the likes of Luther and calvin and even good ol’ Henry the VIII.

I believe it was Harry Emerson Fosdick who said that “I can only believe in a God that I cannot understand.” We live in a mammoth, mysterious, miraculous and marvelous universe, with maybe a million solar systems. To argue that any religion had a serious handle on all this is simplistic.

Are you suggesting astronomy is the key to religious truth? Religion is all about the relationship between God and man. As far as we know, there are no men on any other planets and if there are, I’m sure God has it all figured out. Meanwhile, back here on Earth, God set up his Earthly Kingdom through Peter and no-one else.

Scripture calls us to walk by faith, not by knowledge. Our faith is in God not in any church or book.

Then you are denying a goodly part of the scriptural sources which you say you place so much faith in, for they are to do with Jesus setting up His Church on earth through His apostolic successors. Or do you always simply pick and choose what suits you? Your attitude is a classic example of Sola Fide, yet a contradictory example at that.

We can look to them for guidance, but the deeper meaning of life and the world is well beyond that church or that book. I am satisfied to put my trust in the Almighty, seek to live by the Sermon on the Mount, and resist the notion that my religious tribe is superior to all the other such tribes.

The deeper meaning of life and the world is far more accessible through the enlightened works of the one true Christian Church than it ever will be through individuals and groups of individulas who broke away because they thought they knew better. Your rejection of the notion that one “religious tribe is superior to all others” is another example of hubristic theology and a denial of Christ’s mission on Earth, which the scriptures deal with and you conveniently ignore.

God provided us with a brain. How could he possibly punish us because we used that brain and thought for ourselves?

You mean like Lucifer did? You see, it all depends how and what for one uses one’s brain. There are many who have adopted a morally relativistic approach to life who use this same excuse to justify their own personal behaviours and religious prqctices.

I enjoy Bible Study groups where participants feel free to think for themselves, and this naturally leads to different perspectives. No notion of heresies or heretics. Praise God!

Sola Scriptura! Anything goes.

I’m sure that one important influence on my thinking is my mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage. It seems so silly to say that one side is right and the other wrong. There are wonderfully devout followers of Christ ‘on both sides’ and there is something obscene and certainly unChristian when we stand in judgement on one another. Matt. 7:1-2

Ironic that you quote St. Paul earlier to justify what it is you are trying to say, because it was he who entreated us to judge our fellow Christians.

We’re not saved by doctrine. Re-read the Parable of the Good Samaritan plus Matt. 25:31ff. Nothing about doctrine or church connection there, Now abide faith, hope and love. Which is the greatest? I Cor. 13:13.

Read James 2:24 and Matthew 16:18-19. Or do you selectively deny they have something very instructive to say to you?

 

[severus68]

Swiss guy

I guess I must not be part of the choir. I am firmly convinced that church and state should be separate, for the welfare of both. There should be no state religion, whether we're talking about England or Sweden, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or USA.

Besides, I don't believe there is any one true religion. Even Paul said hat 'we see through a glass darkly...." Too often the Church preaches humility, peace and love while embracing ideas that lead to arrogance, conflict and bitterness.

I believe it was Harry Emerson Fosdick who said that "I can only believe in a God that I cannot understand." We live in a mammoth, mysterious, miraculous and marvelous universe, with maybe a million solar systems. To argue that any religion had a serious handle on all this is simplistic. Scripture calls us to walk by faith, not by knowledge. Our faith is in God not in any church or book. We can look to them for guidance, but the deeper meaning of life and the world is well beyond that church or that book. I am satisfied to put my trust in the Almighty, seek to live by the Sermon on the Mount, and resist the notion that my religious tribe is superior to all the other such tribes. 

 God provided us with a brain. How could he possibly punish us because we used that brain and thought for ourselves? I enjoy Bible Study groups where participants feel free to think for themselves, and this naturally leads to different perspectives. No notion of heresies or heretics. Praise God! 

  I'm sure that one important influence on my thinking is my mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage. It seems so silly to say that one side is right and the other wrong. There are wonderfully devout followers of Christ 'on both sides' and there is something obscene and certainly unChristian when we stand in judgement on one another. Matt. 7:1-2

  We're not saved by doctrine. Re-read the Parable of the Good Samaritan plus Matt. 25:31ff. Nothing about doctrine or church connection there, Now abide faith, hope and love. Which is the greatest? I Cor. 13:13.

I have found a lot to ponder on in your posts although with respect, I have found that you tend to be a bit all over.

I agree with you that there should be a seperation of state and religion. There are many Catholics on CAF who agree on this.
My mother was Protestant so while I am Catholic born and bred, I have always had respect for at least main line Protestants.
However, while I do not judge or condemn others, I do take the position that I will live and die a Catholic. I find that my issues with Catholicism is with some people who profess to speak to speak on behalf of God rather than with the Church itself. I do question certain matters but I do it with respect for the Church and I would never put down the Church. The Church is the Church of Christ but humans administer it and humans make mistakes.

I prefer to look at myself rather at others and I think we all have to decide for ourselves what we are.

God bless .

 

[Vouthon]

Besides, I don’t believe there is any one true religion. Even Paul said hat 'we see through a glass darkly…" Too often the Church preaches humility, peace and love while embracing ideas that lead to arrogance, conflict and bitterness.

Dear Roy

Are you aware of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)? He nearly became Pope.

“…Diversity in creation and cultures is the language of God, the radical unity of the opposites. In God absolute unity is absolute multiplicity. It is you, O God, who is being sought in various religions in various ways, and named with various names. For you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths. Love makes the entry, where reason remains outside the door…”

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa

“Cusa seeks to promote the idea that diverse religious customs (the accidents of religion, if you will) conceal a true or ‘ideal’ religion. This ‘una religio’ (one religion) is the unattainable truth about God - of which all existing belief systems are but shadowy reflections. The faithful of all nations and creeds should persevere in their particular expressions of piety in the firm belief that the one true ‘religion’ is the basis of them all”

• ‘Religion’ and the religions in the English Enlightenment By Peter Harrison

“This Good, between ourselves, we call God, when we speak of it. As to the ways of approaching it, Moses described one…This way Christ illuminated and perfected…And it is the same which Muhammad tried to make more accessible to all…To the various nations, You have sent various prophets and masters, the one for this, the other for another time…We praise our God, whose mercy rules over all His works and who alone has the power to bring it about, that such a great diversity of religions would be brought together in one harmonious peace. We, who are His work, cannot disobey His direction. Nevertheless we request instruction, as to how this unity of religion can be introduced by us…You will not find another faith, but rather one and the same single religion presupposed everywhere…There is therefore only a single religion and cult for all those who are of vigorous intellect. This is presupposed in all the diversity of faiths…Therefore hide yourself no longer Lord. Have mercy, show your face, and all peoples shall be saved…If you deign to hear our plea, the sword, hate, envy and all evil will vanish and all shall know that there is but one religion in the multiplicity of faiths…No one really wants as his way of worship something that is a common practice for all. To want what everyone else wants is imitation…It will suffice that there be unanimity in the matter of belief and the law, and that toleration in the matter of ritual be allowed…Since the differences themselves may become a spur to piety, bringing each land to cultivate its own customs with even greater zeal as those most pleasing to God - let there at least be one religion, and one worship, even as you are One”

• Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)

…Of course Cardinal Nicholas believed that the means for achieving the Unity of Religions was through the rites of the Catholic Church. Nicholas of Cusa suggested that the one religion could be manifested through the eastern and western rites of the Catholic Church, which is naturally to be expected since he was a devout Catholic.

 

[Vouthon]

Nicholas was a Roman Catholic Cardinal who lived 570 years ago. He is widely considered one of the great geniuses and polymaths of the 15th century. One of his greatest contributions was his belief in religious liberty, choice of belief and harmony between different religions. His dialogue De pace fidei (On Peaceful Unity of Faith) served to challenge the various leaders of the different religions to adopt religio una in rituum varietate, a common religion that admits of diverse rites. The spirit of this ‘ecumenism’ is reinforced in Cribratio Alkorani, where Nicholas seeks to find common ground between Christianity and Islam. He is today recognized for significant spiritual, scientific and political contributions in European history, notable examples of which include his mystical or spiritual writings on ‘learned ignorance’ (and mathematical ideas expressed in related essays), as well as his participation in power struggles between Rome and the German states of the Holy Roman Empire.Shortly after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, Nicholas wrote De pace fidei, On the Peaceful Unity of Faith. This visionary work imagined a summit meeting in Heaven of representatives of all nations and religions. Islam and the Hussite movement in Bohemia are represented. The conference agrees that there can be una religio in varietate rituum, a single faith manifested in different rites. Nicholas of Cusa suggested that this one religion could be manifested through the eastern and western rites of the Catholic Church, which is naturally to be expected since he was a devout Catholic.

"Mystic, theologian and cardinal, Nicholas found that the insane war between Christians and Muslim were caused by prejudices and misconceptions about each other and the tendencies to assert one’s own religion as the absolute norm for all others. He took the risk of journeying to Constantinople in order to meet Muslims and get first-hand information about their religion with an open mind. He procured a copy of the Holy Quran, studied it carefully and wrote a treatise on it: Cribratio Al Corani (Shifting the Quran) in 1461 in order to help Christians understand the concerns of the Quran. For Nicholas, the Divine is “absolute mystery, incomprehensibly intelligible and named without names.” Hence, no religion is absolute in the sense that it could claim to have comprehended the Divine fully; every religion contains elements of revelation and hence each religion has to be understood in relation with the others. Each is in everything. As finite beings we have access to the Divine not through “proud pursuit of the reason” but in humility and intuitive perception in which a “learned ignorance (docta ignorantia) enlightens our mind. “One is more learned the more one has become aware that one is ignorant.” Then we realise that we cannot comprehend God in our logical categories, but we can only become aware of God’s all pervasive presence through a mystical insight into the deep “harmony of all things”: the entire creation is the “mirror of God” (speculum Dei). Diversity in creation and cultures is the language of God. (explicatio Dei). God is therefore “the radical unity of the opposites” (coincidentia oppositorum). “In God, absolute unity is absolute multiplicity, absolute identity is absolute diversity; absolute actuality is absolute potentiality” (Docta Ignorantia, 1932, pp. 1,5,21,50,74). With this mystical vision Nicholas wanted to open the perspectives of Christian theology to the universality of God’s plan of salvation and help the Christians be more tolerant of the believers of other religions. He prayed: “It is you, O God, who is being sought in various religions in various ways, and named with various names. For you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious rites.” (De Pace, 1956, p. 15)

He was able to look beyond the Christian faith, and to see other religious traditions as being representations of the same basic religious truth, with each religion pointing in various ways to the one truth known and possessed by Christians. This is not to say each religion is of equal value or worth; he believed that the founders of world religions were inspired by God, but the human equation got in the way, and led to various imperfections which need to be purified in order for the members of those religions to see how their faith and tradition ultimately points to what is found in the Christian faith. While he could be said to be an inclusivist, this is not exactly the best way to describe him. He believed that world religions had elements of value within them which could be brought into the Church itself. In part because of the role of Islam in his world, he wanted to have a dialogue with Islam, one which was open and honest, able to present criticism and yet one which could appreciate what was good in the religion as well. Others around him wanted something else: they wanted a crusade. But he saw the horror of this. Nicholas had written with sorrow on the way religion is used for war. If religion is meant to inspire what is best within us, why does it also inspire some of our worst passions as well? Does it have to be that way? For Nicholas, he did not think so. Instead of fighting each other, causing even the best us to become like beasts and hurt so innocents in our rage, he wondered why we do not try to get to know those of other faiths, and actually try to find a way to work together.

 

[Santi2]

By the time you carried out the mandatory feasability studies, the environmental impact studies, gained the necessary EPA permits, drew up a health and occupational safety plan, gained permision to log the forests for timber, informed the authorities about how you’d dispose of the ash and cinders, the poor bastard would have recanted and converted anyway.

 

[Vouthon]

Swiss guy

I guess I must not be part of the choir. I am firmly convinced that church and state should be separate, for the welfare of both. There should be no state religion, whether we're talking about England or Sweden, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or USA.

Well lets make a “new” choir because I agree with you - I support separation of church and state!

Western civilisation is the only civilisation that DID separate religion from politics. And it was initially the Church that did it! The Papacy brought about separation of church and state - with the initial fight to free the Church from the power of the state ie at Canosa.

 

[Lisa44]

There have been some scary things said in this thread. And some good people have come forth to defend the truth of the Christian gospel.

The Holy Spirit is peace. And the gospel is a message of peace. No true Christian uses force to compel others to convert to Christianity. And no true Christian uses force to punish people who will not convert to Christianity.

Matt 10:14 “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.”

The gospel is spread through words.

 

[Vouthon]

There have been some scary things said in this thread. And some good people have come forth to defend the truth of the Christian gospel.

The Holy Spirit is peace. And the gospel is a message of peace. No true Christian uses force to compel others to convert to Christianity. And no true Christian uses force to punish people who will not convert to Christianity.

Matt 10:14 “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.”

The gospel is spread through words.

Amen! There have been things said in this thread that have horrified me as well, things that are un-Christ-like, fundamentalist, violent, intolerant etc. However I have faith in humanity that love will shine through eventually out of the darkness.

“As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11).

*As you can see - the Apostles did not believe in persecuting, compelling or executing people with heretical ideas! *

LACTANTIUS - (Along with Origen, he repudiated the very notion of the death penalty for heresy) “Religion, being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion and one must defend it at any cost. It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion” (De Divinis Institutionibus, 5:10).

TERTULLIAN - (Derived from natural law, religious affiliation is a matter of free will and not compulsion) “However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion-- to which free-will and not force should lead us-- the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind” (Ad. Scapulam, chap. 2).

 

[severus68]

There have been some scary things said in this thread. And some good people have come forth to defend the truth of the Christian gospel.

The Holy Spirit is peace. And the gospel is a message of peace. No true Christian uses force to compel others to convert to Christianity. And no true Christian uses force to punish people who will not convert to Christianity.

Matt 10:14 “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.”

The gospel is spread through words.

Yes.

 

[Vouthon]

Augustine’s early explanation of the Church’s view on this matter (how to deal with heresy), as he wrote in the 5th century, was:

“We wish them corrected, not put to death”

The Church was originally, for the first 12 hundred years, opposed to physical punishment for heresy.

“…As expressed by notables of the 4th and 5th centuries including St Augustine, St Ambrose and Pope Leo I (440-461), the earliest prevailing view was that it was contrary to Christian belief to punish heretics physically, with excommunication being the appropriate response…”

- The Inquisition: A History (Michael C. Thomsett - 2010)

 

[Tridentinum]

Augustine’s early explanation of the Church’s view on this matter (how to deal with heresy), as he wrote in the 5th century, was:

“We wish them corrected, not put to death”

I think you are mis-representing the Inquisition however. It did not exist with the intention of killing heretics. It existed with the intent of finding them, converting them, and reconciling them with society. If this was found impossible they were then handed over to the secular arm.

The Inquisition was first and foremost a penitential and proselytizing office, not a penal tribunal. Unless this is clearly recognized, the Inquisition appears as an unintelligible and meaningless monstrosity. In theory, it was it was a sinner, and not a criminal, who stood before the Inquisitor. If the lost sheep returned to the fold, the Inquisitor counted himself successful. If not, the heretic died in open rebellion against God, and, as far as the Inquisitor was concerned, his mission was a complete failure.

• Excerpt from “The Holy Inquisition: Myth or Reality” by Dr. Marian Horvat, Ph. D.

 

[Roy5]

Well lets make a “new” choir because I agree with you - I support separation of church and state!

Western civilisation is the only civilisation that DID separate religion from politics. And it was initially the Church that did it! The Papacy brought about separation of church and state - with the initial fight to free the Church from the power of the state ie at Canosa.

 I don't claim to be a great student of church history, but I am rather well acquainted with the 'Syllabus of Errors; of Pius IX, a relatively modern document. In it Pius IX (up for sainthood I believe) sharply condemned the separation of church and state.

 Years ago I spent some time in Spain under Franco. Protestantism there was largely underground. It was not permitted to - for example - have a sign outside a church, run a seminary, evangelize outside church walls in any way, etc. Clearly, church and state were in cahoots.

 The Catholic record re separation of church and state is spotty at best. It makes a big thing about freedom of religion now that it no longer has the clout it once had, but throughout most of its history it fostered government favoritism of Catholicism. The record on this is clear.

 In my college days I read parts of *Summa Theologica* and wrote an undergraduate thesis on Aquinas' views re civic matters. What a shock when one day, in the library stacks, I ran across his clear advocacy of executing heretics! His argument seems to make sense to some posters here on CAF, judging from their remarks. True, he wanted the state, not the church, to kill them, but that hardly softens his outrageous position.

The Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 men, 55 of them Protestant 'heretics'. Some of them came from states with state churches (e. g., MA, VA). But fortunately over the years America developed in effect the separation of church and state. It seems that the major opponents of that separation today are certain militant Catholic traditionalists plus various vigorous evangelicals. Ironically, some of those are Baptists, whose Roger Williams had pioneer church-state separation in colonial Rhode Island. 

I am grateful for both my Catholic and Protestant roots. Why does one have to be right and the other wrong? My guess is that both are too limited by human finiteness to have any monopoly on the truth. I advocate friendly dialogue without any air of arrogance or condescension. We all need humility as we have a lot to learn and will not know the full truth until we enter the world to come.   

 God bless Catholics and Protestants - and I would add people of every creed, color, culture and country. Religion should serve as a bridge bringing us together rather than driving us apart. I suspect that God doesn't look all that kindly on religious arrogance - rather like the Pharisee proudly thanking God that he is not like others.

 

[Lisa44]

I think you are mis-representing the Inquisition however. It did not exist with the intention of killing heretics. It existed with the intent of finding them, converting them, and reconciling them with society. If this was found impossible they were then handed over to the secular arm.

• Excerpt from “The Holy Inquisition: Myth or Reality” by Dr. Marian Horvat, Ph. D.

So what do you do when they don’t join the Catholic church? Where in the gospel does it say that when someone rejects a teaching, that Christians should become inquisitors? Or that they should be encouraged to chase the heretics out of the lands and seize their property? Or where does it say that when someone rejects the “words,” to light their town on fire with them in it?

Do you see how ridiculous it is to make the step from someone not accepting teachings,… to persecuting and killing them?

 

[tominrichmond]

Well the situation was this: in the late Middle Ages there was only one Christian religion, Catholicism, and that was the religion of the state in Europe. The overwhelming majority of the people were Catholic and these societies took seriously the duty to recognize the social Kingship of Christ.

In places like France, the Cathari heretics threatened to undermine the foundation of the state by introducing the social disorder of heresy. Besides that, they were a violent, anti-natural law movement. The use of the Inquisition against them was truly blameless, since they were flat out lawbreakers and disturbers of the public order.

In Spain, the problem was that there were a large number of Jews, some of whom falsely converted to the Faith, while secretly practicing their Judaism. It’s historical fact that in the 700 year bloody war between Christianity and Islam in Spain, Jews had frequently and publicly sided with the Moslems. In this situation of wartime, you could not permit that secret Jews would be allowed maintain themselves as a virtual nation within a nation, aligned with Islam.

The Inquisition in Spain ultimately turned over to the state for execution about 2,000 of about 100,000 cases of these false converts, only when they refused to repent. Remember, these were the days before modern, staffed prisons where you could just warehouse someone for a long time. Many if not all of these persons would have been justly executed by the State for treason in any case.

To put it in some perspective, some 30,000 “witches” were burned in Protestant northern Germany in the years after the Spanish Inquisition, and some 100,000 in post Reformation England.

In sum, while we not adopt all the methods used, it’s always important to understand the whole picture in context, and avoid the intellectually lazy and uncritical adoption of the “black legend” about the Inquisition, a legend in which the (mostly English) enemies of the Church took the facts, twisted, tweaked and deformed them, all in an attempt to bring discredit and shame on the Church.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

I’ll bring marshmallows. Who’s bringing the weiners?

 

[petrel]

I have said here earlier that burning alive should always be off the table. It’s simply grossly inhumane. Moreover, men have a duty to cultivate compassion even for those they condemn, and this necessarily entails a duty not to deaden their conscience by subjecting criminals to such horrible extremes of agony. Something quick and painless, such as firing squad or lethal injection, is able to achieve the end without inflicting needless pain on others.

Being burnt alive is a basic description of hell. I don’t like it any more than you do. But if you think that lethal injection is more humane because there is no suffering, then maybe you can suggest to God a different kind of hell.

I know that in modern times, especially with Pope John Paul II we have liked to rewrite our concept of hell to such an extent that it is almost a metaphorical place where nobody actually goes, but in times gone by it was a real place where people burned in agony for all eternity. This is all modernism run amok where we have allowed the secular modern world to shape our faith and beliefs.

There is a hell and the gates are wide open and basically unchecked as our bishops do nothing. Millions of Catholic amble through this physical life unconcerned about hell, unconcerned about the horrible extremes of agony that they will face there. Perhaps if they were aware of hell they would repent of their many heresies and sins and turn back to the true Catholic faith.

 

[Bookcat]

I know that in modern times, especially with Pope John Paul II we have liked to rewrite our concept of hell to such an extent that it is almost a metaphorical place where nobody actually goes

Huh?? Bl. Pope John Paul II said what??

Not.

(your confusing someones idea of what he said with what he taught)

Catechism issued by Him–hence what he taught: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM