On burning heretics

[Tsuwano]

The analogy is poor. Jesus said “Go and sin no more” and presumably the woman listened. The church wants to forgive. The church says to the heretic “You are teaching heresy. Stop this teaching and recant” However the heretic is also a public rebel. He scorns the authority of the church and will not bow his knee to the authority of the church even after repeated warnings and in the face of death continues to rant heresy.

Heresy is a fire of its own and if it becomes uncontained there is no putting it out.

The analogy isn’t poor at all. The focus isn’t on what the woman did or didn’t do after her encounter with Jesus, but rather what Jesus did when he encountered a person who, after breaking the Jewish law, was found guilty and condemned to death. Jesus refused to condemn the woman and throw a stone at her, even though she was guilty before the law. Of course, forgiveness is exactly what our Lord taught the Church to do, but sadly the Church has not always faithfully followed the example of our Lord. The Church is called to trust that the Holy Spirit is always with her and protects her against evil, including the evil of heresy. Executing a heretic, which necessitates a turning away from the charity and mercy which our Lord encouraged us to hold, betrays the trust we are called to place in the Spirit. We make ourselves hypocrites and are placed in the position of burning a village “in order to save it.” No matter how great the heresy, the Church belongs to the Lord and either trusts in his presence or doesn’t. Betraying the teaching of the Lord will not protect the Church from heresy, but rather makes the heretic and heresy more sympathetic. Injustice is a fire of its own and if it becomes habitual, there is no putting it out.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The analogy isn’t poor at all. The focus isn’t on what the woman did or didn’t do after her encounter with Jesus, but rather what Jesus did when he encountered a person who, after breaking the Jewish law, was found guilty and condemned to death. Jesus refused to condemn the woman and throw a stone at her, even though she was guilty before the law. Of course, forgiveness is exactly what our Lord taught the Church to do, but sadly the Church has not always faithfully followed the example of our Lord. The Church is called to trust that the Holy Spirit is always with her and protects her against evil, including the evil of heresy. Executing a heretic, which necessitates a turning away from the charity and mercy which our Lord encouraged us to hold, betrays the trust we are called to place in the Spirit. We make ourselves hypocrites and are placed in the position of burning a village "in order to save it." No matter how great the heresy, the Church belongs to the Lord and either trusts in his presence or doesn’t. Betraying the teaching of the Lord will not protect the Church from heresy, but rather makes the heretic and heresy more sympathetic. Injustice is a fire of its own and if it becomes habitual, there is no putting it out.

It’s executing a person who is going to torch a village and they already tried every other method

 

[Tridentinum]

It’s executing a person who is going to torch a village and they already tried every other method

Before someone blasts you with the ‘No good can come from evil’ theory, I will quickly correct what I think you meant:

It’s executing a person who is torching a village full of people and they already tried every other method.

 

[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.

You seriously need to read this:
“The Holy Inquisition: Myth or Reality”.

You are advocating another gospel, not the gospel of Jesus.

You do realize that this is what the Jews did with Jesus don’t you?

 

[Roy5]

Freedom of religion does not only mean that citizens can practice their faith. It also means that people of different religions can preach their faith, too, and even seek to win converts. That obviously is what Catholics do. I do not approve of Islamic nations who do not permit that. Israel also forbids all Christian evangelistic efforts. Messianic Jews in Israel face serious prejudice. Israel faces special problems in enforcing its laws against Christian evangelism because it depends so much on Christian pilgrims. (I have been one of those four time.)

** When I visited Spain after World War II, when Franco was in power, Protestants were not permitted to evangelize.** They could not, for example, even have a sign outside their churches identifying themselves. They had to worship - basically - secretly. I certainly do not consider that freedom of religion.
**
The essential problem here is the arrogance, the hubris exemplified by those Catholics - not many of them today - who believe that they espouse the truth while everybody else teaches error, and that error essentially has no rights.** They somehow feel that they have the right to oppress other faiths so that Catholics will not be swayed. They want to treat Catholics like children who cannot think for themselves. This style of Catholicism is at odds with basic democracy, and I thought Vatican II had banished it. I do recall that Pius IX (‘Syllabus of Errors’) sharply condemned all others faiths and insisted that Catholicism must have special privileges. Ridiculous. If Catholicism is God’s one true church the Lord will work things out.

** By the way, it’s estimated that 30,000,000 Catholics have exited the church in the US, about half to become Protestants of various types, the rest nothing or some very different expression of spiritualism (New Age, etc.). **There are roughly 70,000,000 Catholics in the US out of a population of 310,000,000. roughly 23% of the population. A third of US Catholics today are Hispanic and if there had not been massive immigration, legal and illegal, from Latin America, Catholicism would have shown serious negative growth. According to polls, about half of all US Catholics are ‘cafeteria Catholics’ and roughly 20-25% attend mass faithfully. Some people have said that many Catholics who remain in the church have been ‘Protestantized’ in that they are very individualistic, no longer yielding easily to the decisions and directive of the Vatican and the hierarchy. They look more to their conscience than to Church edicts.

** God bless good people of every faith.** See Matt. 25:33ff. Nothing there about doctrine or church affiliation as a litmus test before one is granted eternal life. Love God and love one another - the essence of the gospel. Everything else is secondary.

 

[TevereNauta]

Note that I, personally, do not support the burning of those preaching heresy is this day and age (with the modern ability to securely incarcerate, I don’t think burning would be necessary, much like the death penalty no longer being necessary for the same reason) but I think the reasoning behind it, the reasoning behind ‘removing’ heretical preachers, is obvious. Many of those against punishing heretical preachers are of course secular humanists, and from their point of view this makes sense: if one does not live eternally, it is a great crime to punish one in this mortal paradigm. However, if one’s soul lives on forever, as we Catholics believe, then it is indeed a very grave crime for a heretic to go about poisoning the souls of the Faithful to such an extent the possibility exists for those souls led astray to be damned, eternally.

Allow me to present an argument using perhaps the most famous heretic, Luther.

1. Luther’s rampant preaching of heresy led directly and indirectly to millions of people abandoning St. Peter’s ship…

If Luther had been quarantined, even burned at the stake, the Protestant Reformation could have been averted or, at the very least, gainsaid, i.e. Calvin, Henry VIII, et al. may have not been able to gather the popular support necessary to launch their own reformations.

Result: The Fabric of Christendom would have remained whole and seamless—I suspect, my own personal guess, this would also have led to an easier rapprochement between the Eastern and Western Orthodox Catholic.

1. The waves of heresy unleashed by Luther led to opportunistic rulers, ostensibly ‘Protestant’ (German princelings, Henry VIII, Scandinavian monarchs, etc.) to seize Church properties and liquidate them for secular gain, and also, more importantly, to seize the mantle of truth from the Church and take it as their own for secular purposes leading to nationalism.

If Luther had been quarantined, even burned at the stake, the epoch of nationalism, which has cost the world dear in blood, treasure, and stolen amity, would have been forestalled.

Result: Temporal governments were able to usurp the Church’s place in society…in some cases abandoning Church teachings altogether (as in Northern German states) while in others allowing ‘Catholic’ monarchs to make ghastly bargains with the Church lest they become some kind of Protestant themselves, e.g. Louis Quatorze and the advent of Gallicanism.

1. Nationalism born of this heresy led to the socialism becoming a viable philosophy (in the moral vacuum resulting from Luther’s rebellion) and also led to hyper-nationalism, the unification of Germany, the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, the Russian Revolution, Leninism and Stalinism, Nazism, World War Two, and the Holocaust.

If Luther had been quarantined, even burned at the stake, Europe and the West itself could have saved hundreds of millions of lives lost to the plagues of war, revolution, socialism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism.

Result: If Luther, and perhaps a thousand, even ten-thousand, of his followers had been consigned to the flames, hundreds of millions of lives could have been saved. Even in purely secular terms, then, the successful fight against heresy would have meant a world more peaceful and more moral.

I wrote that sequence up just to show how one heretic has caused some much damage to Western, originally Catholic, civilization. So yes, besides theological reasons, I also think there were moral and pragmatic reasons for combating heresy.

Now, multiple the actions of Luther x1000, and you see why the world is the way it is now. Not a pretty picture, and far uglier than the capital punishment of a handful of heretics would have been.

 

[karaleigh]

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.

Amen! Jesus is Lord and it is He who will reign.

 

[petrel]

The analogy isn’t poor at all. The focus isn’t on what the woman did or didn’t do after her encounter with Jesus, but rather what Jesus did when he encountered a person who, after breaking the Jewish law, was found guilty and condemned to death. Jesus refused to condemn the woman and throw a stone at her, even though she was guilty before the law. Of course, forgiveness is exactly what our Lord taught the Church to do, but sadly the Church has not always faithfully followed the example of our Lord.

Tsuwano, surely you can see that the church does not want to condemn the heretic and tries to teach and help him to understand his error and change. It is only when he is defiant and refuses to be corrected and refuses to repent and recant that the church must act.
You seem to think that God would never reject the woman even if she kept on committing adultery. Jesus said ‘Go and sin no more’. I am really stunned and amazed that you cannot see any difference between a person who repents and changes from his or her way, as compared to the individual who refuses to repent or change.

The Church is called to trust that the Holy Spirit is always with her and protects her against evil, including the evil of heresy. Executing a heretic, which necessitates a turning away from the charity and mercy which our Lord encouraged us to hold, betrays the trust we are called to place in the Spirit. We make ourselves hypocrites and are placed in the position of burning a village “in order to save it.”

Tsuwano, Please show the scripture where the Holy Spirit protects us from heresy. In fact this responsibility is given to the church.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

But you seem to be saying that the church should never reject anyone and that it should be left entirely to the Holy Spirit. Sadly, the church has not managed to perform this office of excommunication very well in the last 400 years or so and heresy has been tolerated to the ruination of thousands if not millions of lives.

No matter how great the heresy, the Church belongs to the Lord and either trusts in his presence or doesn’t. Betraying the teaching of the Lord will not protect the Church from heresy, but rather makes the heretic and heresy more sympathetic. Injustice is a fire of its own and if it becomes habitual, there is no putting it out.

Who is betraying the teaching of the Lord? The first time that the word church is used in the scriptures is by the Lord
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The second time the word church is used in the scripture the Lord says
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican

Now a heathen and a publican in those days was not permitted in the temple and was cut off from the congregation of Israel. It was a serious matter in those days.

The Catholic church has prevailed for 2000 years and even though it has appeared on the verge of complete destruction many times the Lord has brought it back from the brink. This is evidence of the Holy Ghost strengthening his people in times of crisis and from a remnant the church is restored. However the work of the Holy Ghost is severely thwarted when his people do not cooperate with the work of God, when they are sinning, and especially when his ministers do not perform the functions which he gave them. The whole church suffers in such cases. Tsuwano, it is important to understand that the church is a work of men (with the Holy Ghost indwelling) Of course the Holy Ghost does the work but he works through men. Jesus Christ was a man, all the apostles who founded the church were men. The Holy Ghost works through men as much as they allow him, but he is not a panacea that solves all our problems for us.

I believe that when the church is in a really bad state that the Lord sends external forces to correct the church and turn her back to him. I put the reformation into that category. But if we don’t want the Lord to judge us then we must all pull our socks up and start taking our responsibilities seriously. One of the most important responsibility for all of us is to detect heresy in our midst and do what we can to warn others. Report the heretic to the priest. If he does nothing report the heretic to the bishop. If a thief was trying to break into our house or into our neighbours house we would have no hesitation but to call the police. But the heretic is not breaking in to steal TV’s, he is breaking in to steal souls and as a good citizen of the Kingdom of God we should call the authorities.

In the parable of the wheat and tares the Lord instructs the disciples not to pull out the tares lest some of the wheat gets pulled up also. He says that an enemy broke in and sowed the tares in the night. Well the church can do nothing about the heretic that operates under the radar so to speak. But the heretic who is a public heretic is in broad daylight sowing tares in the Lord’s field. It is outrageous to imagine that in such a case the church should do nothing?

 

[petrel]

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.

There is a difference between evil state religions and good state religions just as there is a difference between evil secular states and good secular states. To tar the whole concept of a state religion with the one broad brush is quite unreasonable.
As a Christian would you prefer to live under the pagan Roman empire state or would you prefer to live under Constantines state religion. Actually I think it was a later emporer who made Christianity the state religion. In the west the concept of a state religion was formed during the enlightenment period of the French revolution.

Wikipedia describes the toll on the church of this period.

Under threat of death, imprisonment, military conscription, and loss of income, about twenty thousand constitutional priests were forced to abdicate and hand over their letters of ordination, and six thousand to nine thousand of them were coerced to marry. Many abandoned their pastoral duties altogether.[8] Nonetheless, some of those who had abdicated continued covertly to minister to the people.[8]

By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and others who did not leave were executed.[5] Most French parishes were left without the services of a priest and deprived of the sacraments. Any non-juring priest faced the guillotine or deportation to French Guiana.[9] By Easter 1794, few of France’s forty thousand churches remained open; many had been closed, sold, destroyed, or converted to other uses.[8]

Victims of revolutionary violence, whether religious or not, were popularly treated as Christian martyrs, and the places where they were killed became pilgrimage destinations.[10] Catechising in the home, folk religion, syncretic and heterodox practices all became more common.[11] The longterm effects on religious practice in France were significant. Many who were dissuaded from their traditional religious practices never resumed them.[12]

In the last 30 years the revisionists have been steadily rewriting the history of the French Revolution. It is important that as Catholics we do not forget what happened and that we do not advance or support the precepts of this so-called “enlightenment” period.

No Catholic state ever treated its citizens in such a disgraceful unjust way. So much for the separation of church and state. And now in these days, as I have pointed out before, separation of church and state is resulting in an increasingly godless country where the unborn are slaughtered at barbaric rates. So much for separation of church and state.

 

[severus68]

I don’t care what ‘arguments’ Catholic or other fundamentalists use to justify burning people alive for their religious beliefs, 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. 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. I find it strange that some Catholics seem very happy to revive this practice if they were in power. 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.

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? What right does a religious minority like Catholicism have to make such a claim? 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.

I agree with much of what you say here, certainly no to a state religion. I am just curious about your stats. You say about 10% of Catholics (25 million) in the US have left the Church and 11 % of Australian Catholics attend Sunday mass. Since Catholics make up about 22% of the US population, the figure of 25 million is not right and 11% for Australians attending Sunday mass appears rather small. Saying that, I do agree that what is said on forums like this does affect the decision of some to leave the Church. Some here post whatever they want knowing they can do it with impunity with no real consequences, some want to just rant and rave. None of these would speak like this to anyone face to face.

 

[Brofessor]

I just made an account because of how appalled I am at this post.

I am a heretic. I am a Catholic, and I publicly and repeatedly campaign for women’s ordination, same-sex marriage, and socialism. I attend an Episcopal (USA) church, and believe in the apostolicity and catholicity of the Anglican Communion and Old Catholics, among others.

I have sought out repeated conversations with priests about my beliefs, certainly more than two (Aquinas). I refuse to recant, because I remain unconvinced that my beliefs are wrong.

So let’s sum up. I espouse heretical views, I try to convince others of their truth, and I have repeatedly refused to recant them, because I believe they are right. Do I deserve to be killed for this crime?

Or, to put it another way, if I woke up tomorrow and I was in a Catholic theocracy, and I continued to argue my beliefs, even when imprisoned, should I be executed?

I don’t know about you guys, but I respect human dignity enough to take a stand against killing in any form, be it abortion, war or the death penalty.

 

[cornbread_r2]

[snip]

So let’s sum up. I espouse heretical views, I try to convince others of their truth, and I have repeatedly refused to recant them, because I believe they are right. Do I deserve to be killed for this crime?

Or, to put it another way, if I woke up tomorrow and I was in a Catholic theocracy, and I continued to argue my beliefs, even when imprisoned, should I be executed?

[snip]

According to some here, yes, you should be prevented – by whatever means necessary – from spreading your heresy, to keep you from destroying/killing/ruining the souls of others. The consensus here among the hardliners seems to be that if close imprisonment isn’t enough, then execution is warranted.

What has bothered me about this thread from the beginning is that it is being assumed that the heretic and his/her followers are always condemned to hell if they do not repent. Before I’ll accept that view, I want to see where Catholic doctrine posits that a heretic who follows their conscience, in good will, with due diligence and to the best of their abilities necessarily goes to hell for their heresy.

I’m of the opinion that it really isn’t the loss of souls that’s troubling to these folks – it’s the loss of bums in Catholic pews that’s troubling.

 

[petrel]

According to some here, yes, you should be prevented – by whatever means necessary – from spreading your heresy, to keep you from destroying/killing/ruining the souls of others. The consensus here among the hardliners seems to be that if close imprisonment isn’t enough, then execution is warranted.

What has bothered me about this thread from the beginning is that it is being assumed that the heretic and his/her followers are always condemned to hell if they do not repent. Before I’ll accept that view, I want to see where Catholic doctrine posits that a heretic who follows their conscience, in good will, with due diligence and to the best of their abilities necessarily goes to hell for their heresy.

I have not heard anyone say that. I believe that people that openly and brazenly reject the teachings of the church and who still call themselves Catholic are most certainly heretics and should be excommunicated. Their Catholic friends and family should be warned not to associate with them as their beliefs which they public espouse,are dangerousto their souls. This was practiced in early Christianity such as in 1_Corinthians 5:11-13. and Matthew 18:15–17, and by the Catholic church up until the 1983 Canon Law, which as we have observed many times has changed many things in the church.

Excommunication should result in banishment so that the heretic understands the severity of his situation. In the old days of the Catholic church a bell was tolled (as for the dead) the gospel was closed and a candle snuffed out, signifying the frightening spiritual state of the excommunicated.

Of course we don’t do things that way any more, and it seems that everyone sighs with relief, caring not at all that our Church is disolving into a pulp of heresy. I grieve that someone with the attitude of Brofessor is allowed to openly express his rebellion against the authority of the Catholic Church which instructs him what to believe and requires his assent. The Anglicans from the TAC humbly signed the Catechism to assent to all the teachings of the Catholic church. What a great example. How many Catholics today believe all that is written
in the Catechism? Even if they knew a tiny fraction of what was contained therein.

Catholic

pews that’s troubling.
I can assure you that I could not care less about bums on seats. I want to see the holiness and the unity of the faith restored.I want to see apostates, the sacriligeous and heretics expelled from the church. How is that going to increase bums on seats?

 

[Petergee]

I just made an account because of how appalled I am at this post.

I am a heretic. I am a Catholic, and I publicly and repeatedly campaign for women’s ordination, same-sex marriage, and socialism. I attend an Episcopal (USA) church, and believe in the apostolicity and catholicity of the Anglican Communion and Old Catholics, among others.

I have sought out repeated conversations with priests about my beliefs, certainly more than two (Aquinas). I refuse to recant, because I remain unconvinced that my beliefs are wrong.

So let’s sum up. I espouse heretical views, I try to convince others of their truth, and I have repeatedly refused to recant them, because I believe they are right. Do I deserve to be killed for this crime?

Yes you do. However it does not follow that it would be appropriate for the State to kill you, nor does it follow that the State even has the right to kill you.

Or, to put it another way, if I woke up tomorrow and I was in a Catholic theocracy,

There is not, never has been, never will be and never can be any such thing as a Catholic theocracy (until the Second Coming). The Catholic Church invented the idea of separatuing religious authority from State authority. The idea of combining State authority with Christian religious authority was something invented by protestants in the 16th century.

and I continued to argue my beliefs, even when imprisoned, should I be executed?

I don’t know about you guys, but I respect human dignity enough to take a stand against killing in any form, be it abortion, war or the death penalty.

War and the death penalty can be moral under certain circumstances. This is perfectly compatible with human dignity, in fact human dignity demands it. Do you seriously think that it would have been more respectful of human dignity if the Allies had not waged war against the Nazis?

 

[Tsuwano]

Tsuwano, surely you can see that the church does not want to condemn the heretic and tries to teach and help him to understand his error and change. It is only when he is defiant and refuses to be corrected and refuses to repent and recant that the church must act.
You seem to think that God would never reject the woman even if she kept on committing adultery. Jesus said ‘Go and sin no more’. I am really stunned and amazed that you cannot see any difference between a person who repents and changes from his or her way, as compared to the individual who refuses to repent or change.

Tsuwano, Please show the scripture where the Holy Spirit protects us from heresy. In fact this responsibility is given to the church.

But you seem to be saying that the church should never reject anyone and that it should be left entirely to the Holy Spirit. Sadly, the church has not managed to perform this office of excommunication very well in the last 400 years or so and heresy has been tolerated to the ruination of thousands if not millions of lives.

Who is betraying the teaching of the Lord? The first time that the word church is used in the scriptures is by the Lord
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The second time the word church is used in the scripture the Lord says
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican

Now a heathen and a publican in those days was not permitted in the temple and was cut off from the congregation of Israel. It was a serious matter in those days.

The Catholic church has prevailed for 2000 years and even though it has appeared on the verge of complete destruction many times the Lord has brought it back from the brink. This is evidence of the Holy Ghost strengthening his people in times of crisis and from a remnant the church is restored. However the work of the Holy Ghost is severely thwarted when his people do not cooperate with the work of God, when they are sinning, and especially when his ministers do not perform the functions which he gave them. The whole church suffers in such cases. Tsuwano, it is important to understand that the church is a work of men (with the Holy Ghost indwelling) Of course the Holy Ghost does the work but he works through men. Jesus Christ was a man, all the apostles who founded the church were men. The Holy Ghost works through men as much as they allow him, but he is not a panacea that solves all our problems for us.

I believe that when the church is in a really bad state that the Lord sends external forces to correct the church and turn her back to him. I put the reformation into that category. But if we don’t want the Lord to judge us then we must all pull our socks up and start taking our responsibilities seriously. One of the most important responsibility for all of us is to detect heresy in our midst and do what we can to warn others. Report the heretic to the priest. If he does nothing report the heretic to the bishop. If a thief was trying to break into our house or into our neighbours house we would have no hesitation but to call the police. But the heretic is not breaking in to steal TV’s, he is breaking in to steal souls and as a good citizen of the Kingdom of God we should call the authorities.

Of course I believe the Church does not want to condemn heretics but seeks to help them understand their error and change. I’m simply at a loss as to how burning someone at the stake accomplishes this as our Lord would have done it. The Church must act against heretics by executing them? This is the only option left to the Church, to protect itself by defying the teaching of our Lord concerning love and mercy? I don’t believe the Church protects itself by going against the voice of its master. I believe it defiles itself and sins. Of course I can see the difference between a person who repents of sin and a person who doesn’t, but I don’t believe the Church should burn people at the stake, whether they are repentant or not. Furthermore, I don’t believe the Church has the right to burn people at the stake. I never said that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from heresy or sin. I said that the Lord promised that the Holy Spirit is always with his Church and we should trust that heresy or sin cannot overcome the Church. If we believe the Holy Spirit is present with the Church, what need do we have of Church sanctioned executions for heresy. Let the wind blow where it will! The truth is present with the Church and it is protected by the Holy Spirit. No, I’m not saying that the Church has no right to reject someone for heresy and not allow that person to participate in the sacraments until he has repented. I’m saying that the Church has no right to kill someone for their sin. The Lord specifically taught us to forgive those who sin against us and to pray for our enemies. He didn’t say light the faggots and burn them! The title of this thread is “On burning heretics” and the discussion is whether the Church has the right to burn heretics. My stance is no, it doesn’t, not because it doesn’t have the right to protect itself, but because some acts, such as burning heretics, go against the teaching of our Lord and do more damage to the Church than enduring the pain of heresy. Again, trusting that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church in truth, we have little to fear from heresy, especially heresy which goads us into turning against our very master. Have faith, people! Fear of heresy is itself a kind of heresy.

 

[Tsuwano]

It’s executing a person who is going to torch a village and they already tried every other method

No, they haven’t already tried every other method. They haven’t tried the method of our Lord which was to turn the other cheek and love. The fact that the Holy Spirit protects the truth within the Church should make us fearless in carrying out the teachings of our Lord. Instead, we cower behind power and our rights and our oh, so self righteous desire to protect the innocent. What heresy, what heretic is greater than the Holy Spirit? Why are we so afraid?

 

[ahs]

No, they haven’t already tried every other method. They haven’t tried the method of our Lord which was to turn the other cheek and love. The fact that the Holy Spirit protects the truth within the Church should make us fearless in carrying out the teachings of our Lord. Instead, we cower behind power and our rights and our oh, so self righteous desire to protect the innocent. What heresy, what heretic is greater than the Holy Spirit? Why are we so afraid?

You make a really good point. And you are right, that no heresy or heretic can bring down the Church. None is greater that the Holy Spirit and none can overpower God’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail over His Church.

But I don’t think that is what the initial thread topic was geared at. It isn’t the Church that heresies can destroy, but individual souls. Heretics and their heresies can, and have, and do lead souls away from God’s Truth. It is those souls that are in real danger, and that is the reason for wanting to stamp out heresy. And not only for the sake of the souls that would be led astray, but for the sake of the soul of the heretic, whose soul also is in danger if he persists, as noted by Christ:

“…But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Douay-Rheims, Matt 18:6)

 

[Vouthon]

According to some here, yes, you should be prevented – by whatever means necessary – from spreading your heresy, to keep you from destroying/killing/ruining the souls of others. The consensus here among the hardliners seems to be that if close imprisonment isn’t enough, then execution is warranted.

What has bothered me about this thread from the beginning is that it is being assumed that the heretic and his/her followers are always condemned to hell if they do not repent. Before I’ll accept that view, I want to see where Catholic doctrine posits that a heretic who follows their conscience, in good will, with due diligence and to the best of their abilities necessarily goes to hell for their heresy.

I’m of the opinion that it really isn’t the loss of souls that’s troubling to these folks – it’s the loss of bums in Catholic pews that’s troubling.

 

[Debora123]

How very ironic.

While our current pope calls out to an end to the Death Penalty (as his blessed predecessor did before him), we sit around on a Catholic forum discussing the justification behind burning people alive for expressing different religious beliefs.

 

[Tsuwano]

You make a really good point. And you are right, that no heresy or heretic can bring down the Church. None is greater that the Holy Spirit and none can overpower God’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail over His Church.

But I don’t think that is what the initial thread topic was geared at. It isn’t the Church that heresies can destroy, but individual souls. Heretics and their heresies can, and have, and do lead souls away from God’s Truth. It is those souls that are in real danger, and that is the reason for wanting to stamp out heresy. And not only for the sake of the souls that would be led astray, but for the sake of the soul of the heretic, whose soul also is in danger if he persists, as noted by Christ:

“…But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Douay-Rheims, Matt 18:6)

Well, you make a good point, too, in saying that it isn’t the Church which heresy can destroy, but the souls of individual persons by leading them astray. But then again, so can any mortal sin and any person who commits a mortal sin, and yet, we do not advocate the murder or burning of all sinners. This is why, in a previous post, I mentioned the refusal of Jesus to condone the stoning of the woman caught in adultery, even though he must have known of the possibility that she would not turn away from her sin and possibly lead others astray. He knew that to stone the woman, no matter how great her sin, no matter that others might be influenced by her sin, would be to make himself and his teachings of love and mercy hypocritical. Of course he called her to repentance, but other than that he allowed her, and all those who might come in contact with her, to decide their own fate. He did not tell her to repent or he would chase her down and make sure she was stoned the next time. The same is true with the Samaritan woman at the well. Though he knew she had had five partners who were not her husband and that her present lover was also not her husband, he did not seek to kill her less she continue to influence others into sin. He remained faithful to his own teaching of love and mercy. This is what I feel the Church should always do as well. We should remain faithful to the teaching of our Lord in matters of sin and sinners. Burning heretics, despite the danger a heresy may pose to innocents and despite the will of the Church to protect those innocents, is to fall away from the teaching of the Lord. The innocent are not protected when the Church falls from the teaching of her master. They are placed in greater danger because the integrity and faith of the Church is placed at risk. Thank God that he has given the Church his Holy Spirit! Any other organization which flaunted its own guiding principles and the master who taught them in the way the medieval Church did by supporting the horrible executions of heretics would have collapsed a long time ago.