Religious Freedom and the 15th Century

  • Thread starter Thread starter LowerCasec
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LowerCasec

Guest
I’ll start by saying brothers and sisters that I am by no means a Catholic hater. I do love you and your discipline and many of your traditions. I believe I stand side by side with you in Christian brotherhood. There are times though I do a double-check to see if I heard something right. I believe I have found some irony. I listened to Immaculate Heart radio on my way to and from work. During an advertisement I heard that the Catholic Church is fighting for religious freedom. I though, that’s curious given its past. I put together a syllogism in an attempt to clarify my thinking. Please dispute any of the premises to enlighten me.
  1. Catholic governments executed individuals who disagreed with the Catholic Church
  2. The Catholic Church did not attempt to stop such executions (unless you count forcing someone to recant their thinking)
  3. The Catholic Church had the opportunity to condemn the execution of heretics.
  4. The Catholic Church is morally culpable for the death of heretics within Catholic States
It’s ironic that the Catholic Church in America is now pressing for Religious Liberty. Where was the Catholic Church in 15th century Prague, Italy, or England appealing for Religious Liberty? I imagin Wycliff, Hus, and Savonarola are shaking their heads in disbelief given the 180 that has occured over the past 600 years.
 
  1. governments executed traitors. and Lutherans killed catholics for being Catholics
  2. and the church does not stop the government of today from executions
  3. what is yor point here?
  4. As is the Lutheran church and Anglican Church and many other churches.
 
And where were the Protestant churches and Church leaders when the tables were turned? A fair few Catholics were burned at the stake too.

Perhaps it had less to do with the Churches, and more to do with the medieval mindset of the people involved. Maybe we’re all a little wiser in some ways than we were then.
 
I imagin Wycliff, Hus, and Savonarola are shaking their heads in disbelief given the 180 that has occured over the past 600 years.
So you are praising the Church’s position today, correct? And you are acknowledging that the secularists who so often claim of evil medieval behavior by the Church centuries ago are now themselves conducting their own Inquisition under penalty if you don’t embrace their dogmas on sexual teaching, correct?
 
And where were the Protestant churches and Church leaders when the tables were turned? A fair few Catholics were burned at the stake too.

Perhaps it had less to do with the Churches, and more to do with the medieval mindset of the people involved. Maybe we’re all a little wiser in some ways than we were then.
Oh…I don’t about that. We’re a lot more squeamish nowadays, that’s for certs. We like our violence sanitized and hidden away; unless it’s pretend, oh, well then we glorify it. Bathe in it.

Does that make us wiser? Or just more dishonest?

People are people. It’s dangerous to think that we’re all that different from the people that gassed Jews or burned witches or threw Christians to lions or nailed Christ to a tree.

That is to say, though it’s certainly good to recognize these things as evil, it’s decidedly bad to say anything except, “There, except for the Grace of God, go I.” There’s no disease so deadly as thinking you’re alright.

Looking over the maths, it seems that more souls are saved by tolerating errors in the hope that God’s grace might move souls to conversion, than by violently stamping out dissension. Much like the Father’s toleration of our free and fallen wills; much like His patient waiting on the return home of we, His prodigal children.
 
Apparently you would’ve done things differently. I’ve never quite understood how people sit in judgment of the past, however, which is really the past-the history-of us all, of humankind. The gospel, the gospel the Church has carried down through the centuries, is the cause of man’s becoming more loving, relatively speaking, compared to his immediate past. It doesn’t perfect us, individually or corporately, overnight. The Church is just getting better at heeding her own gospel, as we all should be.
 
So you are praising the Church’s position today, correct? And you are acknowledging that the secularists who so often claim of evil medieval behavior by the Church centuries ago are now themselves conducting their own Inquisition under penalty if you don’t embrace their dogmas on sexual teaching, correct?
Are you comparing things like laws supporting gay marraige with murder and torture?
Apparently you would’ve done things differently.
I’d look back at my history of when people who believed like I did were murdered and tortured, realize the conundrum, and take a firm stance against murder and torture. There were civilizations prior to then which allowed for freedom of belief and conscience, so it wasn’t a new idea.

Is there anybody here who thinks the crime of heresy was truly worthy of death and torture at any time in history? If so, does apostasy also merit the same punishment? Thanks.
 
I think a lot of people misunderstand what religious freedom is.

The Church protected the rights of Jews and Moslems (as best they could) and most were able to live peacefully in Catholic jurisdictions. That is religious freedom. They were not forced to convert.

Heresy is another matter entirely. One is not free to spread false teaching. Regarding the **civil **aspects of heresy-- for which they were being punished-- obstinant heretics who would not recant their false positions were considered treasonous, anarchists of their day, as they were opposing the civil order and lawful authority over them.
 
It’s ironic that the Catholic Church in America is now pressing for Religious Liberty. Where was the Catholic Church in 15th century Prague, Italy, or England appealing for Religious Liberty? I imagin Wycliff, Hus, and Savonarola are shaking their heads in disbelief given the 180 that has occured over the past 600 years.
Let’s not be selective about dates. You know that in the last 600 years Catholics were also persecuted in England, in America( from the colonies) and the Catholic Church today in America continues to be persecuted for what she believes. Where is the Catholic Church persecuting anyone in the world?

What is your point bringing up Wycliff and Hus?
 
The Catholic Church does not believe in an absolute or unlimited religious liberty. False religious activity should be suppressed if it is harmful to the common good or contrary to the natural law/objective moral order (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2109).

It should be noted that the kind of heresy that was punished severely was the kind that threatened to destroy society–in a completely Catholic society it amounted to treason and rebellion, which is why the secular power had such an interest in it. Given the makeup of society today, such punishments would most certainly not be justified. Punishing heresy, even with mild ecclesiastical penalties, has also been seen as unjustified for those born as non-Catholics who have never been Catholic.

See this part of Archbishop Wilhelm von Ketteler’s 19th century essay. He explains why such things may have been justified in the past, but why they are not generally now, despite the principles staying the same:

Opuscula: Religious Freedom (Part III)

For another example, back in the 1800s the Archbishop of New York, John Hughes, had a formal debate about the Catholic doctrine on religious liberty with a Presbyterian minister, John Breckinridge. Breckinridge brought up the forceful suppression of heresy in medieval times, citing especially the Church’s treatment of the Albigensians. Here’s how Hughes responded (the gentleman he refers to is Breckinridge):
Archbishop John Hughes:
Let any man apply the doctrines of the Albigenses, simply on two points, viz. the tenet that the devil was the creator of the visible world ; and that, in order to avoid co-operation with the devil in continuing his work, the faithful should take measures by which the human race should come to an end ; and then say whether those errors were merely speculative. They were, on the contrary, pregnant with destruction to society. Was it persecution, or rather, was it not self-preservation, to arrest those errors? We shall see presently, however, that these men, like the Calvinists in France at a later period, took up the sword of sedition, and wielded it against the government under which they lived. We shall see, that long before the canon of Lateran was passed, their course was marked with plunder, rapine, bloodshed. And if so, it follows that their crimes against society springing from their doctrines, constitute the true reason of the severity of the enactment against them.

Their existence was known from the year 1022. If, then, the extermination of heretics had been a doctrine of the Catholic Church, why were they not exterminated from the first? If it was not a doctrine of the church in 1022, it was not a doctrine in 1215; for the gentleman himself admits and proclaims that our doctrines never change. Why then did not the Catholics exterminate them at once ? Is it that they were not able ? No : for at first the heresy had but few supporters. But why were they afterwards persecuted ? The reason is, that in the interval they had proceeded to sustain and propagate their infernal principles, by violence. They had placed themselves under the patronage of factious and rebellious barons, and had fought in pitched battles against their sovereigns. In the former controversy, the gentleman garbled the twenty-seventh canon of the third Council of Lateran, to show that these poor heretics were condemned to awful penalties, for nothing at all but protesting against the errors of the Church of Rome. This he did by quoting the beginning and conclusion of the canon, and, without indicating any omission, suppressing the crimes of these proto-martyrs of Calvinism. It was proved, by the very document from which he quoted, that these lambs of the Albigensian fold were “exercising such cruelty on the Christians, (ie. the Catholics) that they paid no respect to churches or monastaries, spared neither virgins nor widows, neither old nor young, neither sex nor age, but after the manner of pagans destroyed and desolated every thing.”
Wyciffe and Hus, through their doctrine of dominion by grace, led to the same kind of chaos–they taught that someone in mortal sin lost all claim to governmental and ecclesiastical authority, as well as the right to own property, which led to all sorts of plundering and violence–in addition to their inciting general rebellion among the people.
 
Are you comparing things like laws supporting gay marraige with murder and torture?
No, I compared the govt’s current financial penalties to murder and torture. I did not suggest they were moral equivalents, but simply both penalties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top