I don’t care what ‘arguments’ Catholic or other fundamentalists use to justify burning people alive for their religious beliefs
Muslims, Jews and the various heathen nations have never been burned for their religious believes. They have been allowed to live among Catholics relatively peacefully.
Neither are heretics burned for their religious beliefs. A Catholic who holds a heretical belief in private would never be burned even though he is in a state of mortal sin. The kind of heretic who is burned is one who is publicly teaching heresy against the authority of the church in order to drag away a following to his belief. He is not just holding personal beliefs, but is forcefully influencing others to share his belief. Not only does such a deed threaten the eternal lives of others but it also threatens the peace of society. This was particularly the case with the Albigenses whose beliefs and lifestyle were causing major social unrest. When the peace of society is threatened then it becomes a concern of the State.
, or for applying the death penalty to people who leave Catholicism, or who hold ‘heretical’ views. To me going back to this barbaric practice would be akin to Islamic states that execute Muslims for converting to Christianity.
It is nothing like that. A Catholic even in those days could convert to Muslim and would not be burned. Apostates and Infidels were never burned. Heretics as I said before are a different case because they are causing a schism, a division in the body of Christ. They are setting up a new altar with a new ministry. They seed confusion among people as they seek to convert entire communities to their own brand of Christianity.
At the reformation we saw what happened when a heretic was not burned and was allowed to run rampant like a wild boar in the forest. Within a few short years all of Europe was in chaos and entire nations were lost to the faith. Not a few hundreds years earlier John Hus was burned at the stake. Perhaps if that had not happened the reformation would have happened earlier.
I think church teaching from Vatican II makes it clear and plain enough that no-one (Catholic or otherwise) can be compelled by force to act against their conscience in religious matters.
The scripture is very clear that people that cause division are to be excommunicated and banished from the community of the Church. But what do you do if the whole nation and the whole western world is Catholic. Where do you banish them to? You can’t just dump them off at the next nation and give someone else your problem. Therefore force must be applied to keep them from spreading their poison.
I find it strange that some Catholics seem very happy to revive this practice if they were in power.
I don’t think that is a fair assessment. What might have been appropriate in one time and place is not always appropriate in another time and place. I would not try to revive the practice, but I will not judge the men of a different age by applying modern politically correct values upon them.
It seems to justify the thesis of Anthony Grayling and Dame Mary Warnock that religious people who believe they hold infallible moral and religious truth should never be allowed anywhere near the reigns of political power.
Everybody who has reigns of political power believes they are right. Do you honestly believe that the world is better off with atheists holding the reigns of political power than they were when Catholic leaders held the reign of power. I hardly think so.
A good thought experiment to apply is this: in America, about 1 in 10 Catholics (about 25 million people) have left the church for various reasons, including disagreement with the church’s teaching, and in Australia, about 11% of Catholics attend Sunday mass. Should all these people be threatened with torture and execution to be made to return to the faith?
This is taking your opponents case to a ridiculous extreme which is a logical fallacy used in debate. What right does a religious minority like Catholicism have to make such a claim? None. But if Catholicism was the religious majority and the nation was a Catholic nation then it would have the right, just as a Muslim nation has the right to prevent Catholics from proselytising in their nations.
Why shouldn’t Muslims in that case be allowed to demand the death penalty for Muslims who convert to Catholicism or to an end to building any more cathedrals and churches?
I certainly don’t want to return to an era when any religion is the state religion, and enforced by the state.
Catholicism was never forced by the State. However it was declared an error to say that it is not the sovereign right of a Catholic State to sponsor, foster and encourage the Catholic faith. It is also the sovereign right of a Catholic State to ensure the peaceful order of society, just as every nation has a right and duty to do so.
Vatican II is not written from the viewpoint of a Catholic State sponsoring the Catholic church. It is written from the viewpoint of a Catholic under siege by the State. Vatican II was declaring that the religious freedom which existed under the Catholic States must now likewise be granted to the Catholic minority by the secular, heathen and muslim States. Therefore there is no contradiction between Vatican II and the previous councils.
I repeat. Prevention of heresy is not a matter of religious freedom. It is a matter internal to the church which seeks to discipline its own members who have sworn oaths to the Church who are seeking to cause confusion, division and lead people astray.
I once believed that, but I just couldn’t accept that Christ didn’t establish a true Church or religion with his apostles. Otherwise, why all of the mention about the Church in the New Testament if the apostle’s teaching wasn’t authoritative? Why should anyone have listened to them?
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.
