D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Killing people is morally licit sometimes, cf the Bible and CCC
You must have missed the many conditions.
I just noticed something bizarre, there isn’t a single thread on homosexuality on the front page
- Status
I just noticed something bizarre, there isn’t a single thread on homosexuality on the front page
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Killing people is morally licit sometimes, cf the Bible and CCC
Walking_Home:
You must have missed the many conditions.
I just noticed something bizarre, there isn’t a single thread on homosexuality on the front page
Unless you have developed the ability to see the state of a person’s soul at death — you have no way of knowing whose soul is dead. So again-- you would be putting someone to death-- for something you do not know.
P
Petergee
Guest
I find it to be extremely anti Christian, and very sad, not to mention plain rude, that you claim to “know” that a poster holds an opinion which she has just very clearly stated that she does not hold.
“burning to death” = “burning alive”. .
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Who is “she”?
P
Petergee
Guest
Sorry, I assumed from your first name that you were female. My bad.Who is “she”?
V
Vouthon
Guest
How terribly judgemental and Pharisee-like
You cannot possibly know the state of any person’s soul. That is not your right to judge. We do not know for certain if anybody is spiritually “dead” or damned. And even if we imagined that a mythical person was damned, hypothetically speaking, then by executing them you remove any chance they might have at reforming themselves.
Christians are to respond always by turning the other cheek and with love. An eye for an eye makes the world go blind, as Ghandi says. You do not defeat evil by committing evil acts. Its a vicious circle of hatred. It is broken only by unconditional love.
Not to mention, that “heresy” is not necessarily evil. A person may sincerely believe, through the honest pursuit of their own good conscience, that a certain belief is correct. Even if they form some kind of heretical group - such as the sedecavantists who broke after Vatican II - they have the complete civil right to do so. The proper response from the Church should as always be love, to preach the truth in love and to call the schismatists back into the arms of a caring, spiritual mother. By acting with such a Christ-like piety, the “heretics” should be able to see that Holy Mother Church is the true Church of Christ, and hopefully will decide to return. If not, then that’s their choice. They have the civil right.
It is far more “evil” to one’s spiritual health to execute people for following their conscience and yes even leading others to follow their conscience too, than it is in my opinion to commit “heresy” - keeping in mind that the heretic may be sincere, even though he is straying from the true path, and therefore according to Church teaching may still receive the grace of salvation despite their ignorance of the truth.
At this venture, I am going to provide you with two quotations from the holy figure of a non-Christian faith on the subject of “separation of church and state” and following one’s “conscience”. Holy Mother Church, in its Sacred Tradition preserved by the Apostles, teaches me that “all truth wherever it is found belongs to us as Christians” (Justin Martyr) and according to Nostra Aetate (Vatican II), “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in [other] religions” but rather the Church exhorts her sons to “recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men” since they, “often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men”.
In light of this I think that these two teachings from a man called Abdu’l-Baha, a holy figure of the Baha’i Faith, are pertinent with regards to our discussion:
“…Religion is separated from politics. Religion does not enter into political matters. In fact, it is linked with the hearts, not with the world of bodies. The leaders of religion should devote themselves to teaching and training the souls and propagating good morals, and they should not enter into political matters…”
- Abdu’l-Bahá, Eleven essentials
This is an excellent quote, since it makes clear that politics - that is the secular sphere and indeed civil law - is to do with the “world of bodies” whereas religion is to do “with the heart”, the “teaching and training of souls and the propagating of good morals”.
One of the main reasons why the Catholic Church objected so adamantly to the execution of the heretic Bishop Priscillian in 385, quite apart from the sheer inhumanity of this measure and the denial of repentence to the poor man, was on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, since the opposition composed of such luminaries as St Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius, St (Pope) Leo and St Martin of Tours, believed that the appropriate response to heresy was a matter to be resolved solely by the Church and which did not fall within the scope of the state. They merely wanted to impose ecclesiastical punishments on the man - ie excommunication.
There is nothing in Sacred Scripture of Sacred Tradition about suppressing heresy through using secular law and states. Indeed there is nothing in Divine Revelation about “uniquely” Christian/Catholic states. These are all later developments and the Church is in no way bound by the mistakes of infallible, desperate men which took place after the 12th century.
Now onto the second quote of Abdu’l-Baha:
“…Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings…”
*- Abdu’l-Bahá Maqalih-Shaks-i Sayyah *
I will leave you to reflect on the truth of these words yourself. Secular rulers have no right to interfere with the conscience of their subjects.
(continued…)
V
Vouthon
Guest
Within the Church, error has no rights but people must have the right to be “wrong” - especially in the civil sphere. That is the key distinction.
It was explained most perfectly by Archbishop Francois Fenelon. Cardinal James Gibbons, the famous and well-loved American Catholic Bishop and apologist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, described him as follows in his epic defence of the Catholic Faith titled, “The Faith of Our Fathers” (published in 1876):
"…Not to cite too many examples, let me quote for you only the beautiful letter addressed by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, to the son of King James II of England. This letter not only reflects the sentiments of his own heart, but formularizes in this particular the decrees of the Church, of which he was a distinguished ornament…"
With this in mind read the words of Archbishop Francois Fenelon (1651 – 1715), over 300 years ago but still light-years ahead of the moral development of some people participating in this thread:
“…Above all, never force your subjects to change their religion. No human power can reach the impenetrable recess of the free will of the heart. Violence can never persuade men; it serves only to make hypocrites. Grant civil liberty to all, not in approving everything as indifferent, but in tolerating with patience whatever Almighty God tolerates, and endeavoring to convert men by mild persuasion…THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG in matters of religious belief must be accorded, otherwise we produce hypocrites instead of persons with an enlightened belief that is fully their own. If the truth be mighty and God all-powerful, His children need not fear that disaster will follow freedom of thought…If we allow the world to hinder us, then our professed freedom is only a word…To abandon the sentiment of humanity is not merely to renounce civilization and to relapse into barbarism, it is to share in the blindness of the most brutish brigands and savages; it is to be a man no longer, but a cannibal…”
- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) (Let. 30)
And finally consider the words of Cardinal James Gibbons himself in 1876:
"…A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God. Every act infringing on his freedom of conscience is justly styled religious intolerance. The religious liberty is the true right of every man because it corresponds with a most certain duty which God has put upon him.
A man enjoys civil liberty when he is exempt from the arbitrary will of others, and when he is governed by equitable laws established for the general welfare of society. So long as, in common with his fellow citizens, he observes the laws of the state, any exceptional restraint imposed upon him, in the exercise of his rights as a citizen, would be an infringement on his civil liberty.
I here assert… that the Catholic Church has always been the zealous promoter of religious and civil liberty; and that whenever any encroachments on these sacred privileges of man were perpetrated by professing members of the Catholic faith, these wrongs, far from being sanctioned by the Church, were committed in palpable violation of her authority.
Her doctrine is, that as man by his own free will fell from grace, so of his own free will must he return to grace. Conversion and coercion are two terms that can never be reconciled…
The only argument she would use, is the argument of reason and persuasion; the only tribunal to which she would summon you, is the tribunal of conscience; the only weapon she would wield, is “the Sword of the Spirit”, which is the Word of God…
The Church has felt it to be her duty, in every age, to raise her voice against the despotic and arbitrary measures of princes…Yes; the Church, while pursuing her Divine mission of leading souls to God, has ever been the defender of the people’s rights…
I heartily pray that religious intolerance may never take root in our favored land. May the only king to force our conscience be the King of kings; may the only prison erected among us for the sin of unbelief or misbelief be the prison of a troubled conscience; and may our only motive for embracing truth be not the fear of man, but the love of truth and of God…"
- James Cardinal Gibbons,
19th century Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
and Archbishop of Baltimore, in “The Faith of Our Fathers”,
1872
It was explained most perfectly by Archbishop Francois Fenelon. Cardinal James Gibbons, the famous and well-loved American Catholic Bishop and apologist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, described him as follows in his epic defence of the Catholic Faith titled, “The Faith of Our Fathers” (published in 1876):
"…Not to cite too many examples, let me quote for you only the beautiful letter addressed by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, to the son of King James II of England. This letter not only reflects the sentiments of his own heart, but formularizes in this particular the decrees of the Church, of which he was a distinguished ornament…"
With this in mind read the words of Archbishop Francois Fenelon (1651 – 1715), over 300 years ago but still light-years ahead of the moral development of some people participating in this thread:
“…Above all, never force your subjects to change their religion. No human power can reach the impenetrable recess of the free will of the heart. Violence can never persuade men; it serves only to make hypocrites. Grant civil liberty to all, not in approving everything as indifferent, but in tolerating with patience whatever Almighty God tolerates, and endeavoring to convert men by mild persuasion…THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG in matters of religious belief must be accorded, otherwise we produce hypocrites instead of persons with an enlightened belief that is fully their own. If the truth be mighty and God all-powerful, His children need not fear that disaster will follow freedom of thought…If we allow the world to hinder us, then our professed freedom is only a word…To abandon the sentiment of humanity is not merely to renounce civilization and to relapse into barbarism, it is to share in the blindness of the most brutish brigands and savages; it is to be a man no longer, but a cannibal…”
- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) (Let. 30)
And finally consider the words of Cardinal James Gibbons himself in 1876:
"…A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God. Every act infringing on his freedom of conscience is justly styled religious intolerance. The religious liberty is the true right of every man because it corresponds with a most certain duty which God has put upon him.
A man enjoys civil liberty when he is exempt from the arbitrary will of others, and when he is governed by equitable laws established for the general welfare of society. So long as, in common with his fellow citizens, he observes the laws of the state, any exceptional restraint imposed upon him, in the exercise of his rights as a citizen, would be an infringement on his civil liberty.
I here assert… that the Catholic Church has always been the zealous promoter of religious and civil liberty; and that whenever any encroachments on these sacred privileges of man were perpetrated by professing members of the Catholic faith, these wrongs, far from being sanctioned by the Church, were committed in palpable violation of her authority.
Her doctrine is, that as man by his own free will fell from grace, so of his own free will must he return to grace. Conversion and coercion are two terms that can never be reconciled…
The only argument she would use, is the argument of reason and persuasion; the only tribunal to which she would summon you, is the tribunal of conscience; the only weapon she would wield, is “the Sword of the Spirit”, which is the Word of God…
The Church has felt it to be her duty, in every age, to raise her voice against the despotic and arbitrary measures of princes…Yes; the Church, while pursuing her Divine mission of leading souls to God, has ever been the defender of the people’s rights…
I heartily pray that religious intolerance may never take root in our favored land. May the only king to force our conscience be the King of kings; may the only prison erected among us for the sin of unbelief or misbelief be the prison of a troubled conscience; and may our only motive for embracing truth be not the fear of man, but the love of truth and of God…"
- James Cardinal Gibbons,
19th century Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
and Archbishop of Baltimore, in “The Faith of Our Fathers”,
1872
V
Vouthon
Guest
I personally think it is really sad and worrying that a Bishop over 300 years ago, a Cardinal around 136 years ago, and Church Fathers and saints over 1,000 years ago are more humane and morally advanced than posters writing on CAF in the year 2012 of the 21st century.
This tells me a lot
This tells me a lot
S
severus68
Guest
Thank you for the above which again gave me hope that Christ like behaviour will prevail.
V
Vouthon
Guest
“…All of humankind is but one family, dispersed over the face of the whole earth; all men are brothers, and ought to love each other as such. May shame and infamy overtake those impious wretches who seek a cruel unnatural glory in the blood of their brothers, which is their own blood…All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers…”
- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715)
M
Mudgely
Guest
At least that is what the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.
Other historic accounts state that there are occasions where members of the Church hierarchy did perform such executions.
Certainly Torquemada was a friar, and also was responsible for thousands of deaths, though the State generally performed the execution once the Church condemned the accused.
Augustine wrote that torture was appropriate for the treatment of heretics. I believe his reasoning was that without it, they would only continue to sin, and also lead others astray.
D
Debora123
Guest
Yeah, when absolutely necessary for self defense survival, and in just war.
Not when you see someone on the corner of a street holding up a sign that says “end of world coming.”
D
Debora123
Guest
You’re telling me that the poster you mention DOESN’T think heretics should be burned? That he DOESN’T think there may be justification for doing so??
Read the last page.
If he didn’t think so, then he and I wouldn’t be discussing opposing views, which we are, and there would be no reason for us to be in disagreement, which we are.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
This is because at times Bishops were the prince/state.
Look, people, why on earth are we having this thread? I mean, people in the Church burned heretics. It’s not okay. Get over it. Whether it was justifiable or not, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that right now in our day and age it would never be justifiable So why are we discussing this?
p.s: the Church has always been against torture, even if certain people in the Church (e.g St. Augustine) have been ok with it.
D
Debora123
Guest
AmenThis is because at times Bishops were the prince/state.
Look, people, why on earth are we having this thread? I mean, people in the Church burned heretics. It’s not okay. Get over it. Whether it was justifiable or not, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that right now in our day and age it would never be justifiable So why are we discussing this?
p.s: the Church has always been against torture, even if certain people in the Church (e.g St. Augustine) have been ok with it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Have you missed the part where those of us who are trying to **understand the context of actions in previous centuries **(i.e, not advocating to carry them out **today), **most of us being personally inclined to the views above --that is, ourselves inclined to the elimination of the death penalty–ourselves, are simply trying to ‘put straight’ the erroneous views of those who are trying to back handedly judge the souls and hearts of those who lived hundreds of years ago?I personally think it is really sad and worrying that a Bishop over 300 years ago, a Cardinal around 136 years ago, and Church Fathers and saints over 1,000 years ago are more humane and morally advanced than posters writing on CAF in the year 2012 of the 21st century.
This tells me a lot
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Well, the easy way out is that civil rights and social justice hadn’t been developed back then, and they thought they were doing what was best for society and the souls of the people. That’s what I believe (although I think they would’ve done a better job protecting souls by not burning heretics).
D
duneman
Guest
only if they are from Brooklyn
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But. . .I’m not sure what you mean by ‘it’s not OK’. Are you really saying that the people who (according to the laws of the STATE, the State, not “the Church” being the ones carrying out the sentences) who judged and carried out the law were wrong, even though they thought they were right? Now that I can go along with. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that even with the best intentions and ‘the law’s blessing’, trying to stop a heresy through ‘killing’ just didn’t work for anybody’s benefit.This is because at times Bishops were the prince/state.
Look, people, why on earth are we having this thread? I mean, people in the Church burned heretics. It’s not okay. Get over it. Whether it was justifiable or not, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that right now in our day and age it would never be justifiable So why are we discussing this?
p.s: the Church has always been against torture, even if certain people in the Church (e.g St. Augustine) have been ok with it.
BUT if what you mean is, "it’s not okay because killing is always wrong and these people knew, or should have known it’. . .I won’t agree with you. Because as our own Catechism points out, there may be some legitimate situations even now–and there certainly have been some historically–where the state in order to protect its citizens may permit in legitimate defense acts which can cause death. We cannot put 21st century knowledge retroactively into a 16th century person --or group, or country, or institution–and demand that the people ‘then’ follow or know that knowledge back then.
Even less than 100 years ago, doctors ‘lost’ cases because (then) they did not have access to drugs like penicillin. But we would not --at least I HOPE we would not–try to accuse a doctor of 1915 of ‘murder’ for ‘not having treated his patient with penicillin which would have cured him.’ In fact, treatment with penicillin WOULD have cured the person, no question --but penicillin was NOT AVAILABLE in 1915. The means were there, the matter was there, but the KNOWLEDGE WAS NOT THERE. . .and so there was no penicillin then and we cannot ‘blame’ the doctor for not providing the penicillin!!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Oh okay, you answered my question above then and quite well.
EXACTLY. The knowledge had not yet ‘percolated through’ and so you can’t hold them to 21st century standards.
- Status