The burning of heretics

[frobert]

I think the problem with this statement is that there never was a Church teaching that set those conditions.

My statement regarding teaching setting the conditions or foundation is refers to the writings by Doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas and St Augustine.

For example;
Question 11: Heresy
Article 3: Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
Emphasis added.

Source: Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, First and Second Part of the Second Part, on Interior Will, Unbelief, and Heresy
January 1, 1265

 

[Contarini]

You brought up inquisition. The inquisition was meant to deal with spy’s who had let the muslim empire of the moors into catholic Spain, Portugal,and France. rarely was anyone hurt, and the prison were actually so nice people lied to get into them. It was a political issue, not religious, the papacy was a literal kingdom at the time. Virtually no one killed was innocent, they were all guilty of high treason. yes, at one time, the catholic church believed in the death penalty. Ironic

The Inquisition I was talking about, in the 13th century, had nothing to do with the Moors. Your claim is wildly exaggerated insofar as it is not entirely false. It’s just whitewashing.

And where is the evidence for these “prisons that were so nice people lied to get into them”? Sounds like something from the Onion.

It was a religious issue. Heresy was a distinct crime from treason–it was seen as “treason against Christ,” which was distinct from treason against civil authorities. And heresy was consistently defined as the obstinate denial of revealed truth by a baptized person.

Just go read the CE article on heresy, for heaven’s sake. They do their best to defend the Church’s history on this horrifying issue, but they are honest.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

dmar, thanks for posting your earlier posts which I missed due to my absence from the forum.

The quotes from St. Thomas More are interesting, and I thank you for calling them to my attention. But they don’t quite say what you want them to say. Note the key “perhaps”–if the heretics had refrained from violence, perhaps the Church would never have sanctioned the use of violence against them. That word is the sign that St. Thomas knows he’s on pretty thin ice here. There is no evidence that the Church’s legislation concerning handing over heretics to the secular authorities was ever based on the violence committed by the heretics as a necessary cause. It was explicitly and repeatedly based on the grave intrinsic evil of heresy–the denial of some truth taught by the Church. (The other St. Thomas–Aquinas–remains the most accessible and succinct source for this, in his question on heresy from the Summa which frobert has already quoted.) St. Thomas More himself was involved in the prosecution of heretics who were not engaging in any violence, including one who was burned simply for possessing heretical books, and another (Thomas Bilney) who was not even a full-blown Protestant but simply held some Protestant-influenced beliefs.So he clearly didn’t think it necessary for a heretic to be violent in order to be executed. Rather, he’s arguing that violence arose historically in response to the violence of heretics, and he’s speculating–clearly aware that he has no actual evidence for this–that maybe if heretics hadn’t been violent the Church would have left them alone. This goes exactly against what you’re trying to argue.

With regard to the broader issue of the Church’s teachings on the death penalty–it’s clear that the Church did not teach until recently that the death penalty should only be used when human life can’t be protected in any other way. That is a new development of the teaching, and some Catholics regard it as non-binding precisely because it seems to contradict the traditional teaching that punishment (including the death penalty) is both justified and even required for retributive reasons. Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote a very thoughtful piece in 2001 attempting to reconcile this apparently new teaching with the historic teaching of the Church. Scalia (to whom I linked above) isn’t convinced, but I think Dulles has a generally strong argument. I’m open to going further in the direction of opposing the death penalty than he does and regarding the historic position as not being part of the Church’s infallible teaching, but I respect Dulles as a sober and orthodox theologian and would like to see a good answer from a more “liberal” position before endorsing that position.

At any rate, the point is that however we reconcile the current teaching with the past teaching, the past teaching did not ever state that retribution was an insufficient ground for the death penalty by itself. And that applied to heresy as to other grave crimes.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

IOW, it is in the canon of scripture, ergo God inspired.

No dispute about that.

I was left with the distinct impression you didn’t take it literally. Which suggest to me you don’t think it happened or you don’t think it happened as scripture states.

I don’t know what happened. I do not think that any part of Genesis can be described as historical without very heavy qualifications. But that’s neither here nor there.

As I said, Luther didn’t deny any of these things. Yet he still said that heretics shouldn’t be burned. Hence, he clearly didn’t mean what you are talking about.

You are then left with the argument that Luther was talking about one thing and the Pope was correcting him because his words could be taken to mean something Luther didn’t intend.

That’s extremely far-fetched. There is no evidence for this interpretation whatever. It makes no sense in the historical context.

Luther could care less what the pope thought and he said as much. Remember, I was the one who gave the link to Luther’s letter on tranlation. Where he admits adding alone where it wasn’t before. And he would listen to NO ONE because he was Dr Martin Luther and he would have it so.

And I’m the one who pointed out that this was not his reason, but simply a rhetorical flourish before he gave his actual rationale for the translation:shrug:

here’s what made no sense to me.

You made both statements

1. Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.
2. Luther denied that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit,

Why doesn’t that make sense? Luther clearly was referring to the burning of heretics by Christian civil authorities as a punishment for the crime of heresy, with the full approval and collaboration of the Church. This was an established fact in his day, which few people questioned. Those who did question it were considered dangerous radicals. Erasmus questioned it, but had to backtrack after the outbreak of the Reformation because of the more conservative, suspicious attitude of the hierarchy in the 1520s (and he, quite rightly in my opinion, blamed the Protestants for provoking this backlash).

I’m saying you automatically assume every heretic is turned over for death.

Not at all. I believe–not assume, but believe based on good evidence–that the standard practice was to hand over for death any heretic who either refused to repent or repeatedly went back to heresy after claiming to repent.

Deep down you think when the canon says exterminate, exterminate = kill. And it doesn’t.

There’s no “deep down.” I never argued that extermino (not “exterminate”) has to mean “kill.” I now realize, as I did not but should have, that “expel” is a perfectly good translation of “extermino” and not as tendentious and whitewashing as I at first thought. But that doesn’t change the indisputable historical fact that the standard way of dealing with heretics during this period was to attempt to get them to repent, and if they didn’t (or if they repeatedly relapsed) hand them over to civil authorities for execution.

Where is your evidence for heretics being expelled rather than executed? Where is your evidence for the Church telling civil authorities, “When we handed over heretic X, we thought you were just going to show him to the borders, but you executed him instead–that was cruel and harsh of you and we won’t hand over any more heretics if you keep doing that!” On the contrary, Aquinas says explicitly that impenitent/relapsed heretics should be “expelled from the world by death” (see, I’m using the “expel” translation of “extermino” even though New Advent translates the word as “exterminate” in that context, and it’s still clear that Aquinas is talking about killing!). And no one was shocked. No one said, “no, that’s not the teaching of the Church.” Aquinas’ opinion was the standard position of the Church from the twelfth through the seventeenth century, if not the nineteenth.

In Germany, at the time, who started and led the executuions against who?

Of heretics, you mean?

I know that some Dominicans were burned for faking a Marian apparition denying the Immaculate Conception. I don’t know, off the top of my head, of other burnings going on in Germany in the 1510s. There was not a lot of heresy running rampant in Germany at the time, which was one of the reasons Luther was such a shock to everyone. I don’t have access to a list of everyone burned at the stake as a heretic. Wikipedia does have such a list but it’s pretty clearly not complete. The last pre-Reformation entries they have are Savonarola and a certain “Joshua Weissock,” both from 1498. I don’t know anything about Weissock. I do know that Hans Bohm, the Drummer of Niklashausen, was executed as a heretic in 1476. Bohm, like Savonarola, was a populist rabble-rouser whose claims of private revelation had political implications. If we’re talking just Germany, those are the only examples I know of (Savonarola obviously isn’t Germany). There was at least one (I think more but I’m not sure) Lollard executed in England in the 1510s.

After the Reformation, there were several burnings in 1523 of people who were influenced by Luther’s teachings, and some other burnings in the early 1520s in England of people who may have been Lollards or early Protestants or both. After that, alas, the pace of death started to quicken.

Edwin

 

[billcu1]

Writing of Innocent VIII pretty much IMHO wanted people killed. “Hammer against the Witch”. The church still believe “Witches” exist. Pagans or whatever term. “The other guy” basically. Alexander III was another bad pope. Do you really think the secular and church authorities weren’t together on this?

 

[CarmelJerome]

dmar, thanks for posting your earlier posts which I missed due to my absence from the forum.

The quotes from St. Thomas More are interesting, and I thank you for calling them to my attention. But they don’t quite say what you want them to say. Note the key “perhaps”–if the heretics had refrained from violence, perhaps the Church would never have sanctioned the use of violence against them. That word is the sign that St. Thomas knows he’s on pretty thin ice here. There is no evidence that the Church’s legislation concerning handing over heretics to the secular authorities was ever based on the violence committed by the heretics as a necessary cause. It was explicitly and repeatedly based on the grave intrinsic evil of heresy–the denial of some truth taught by the Church. (The other St. Thomas–Aquinas–remains the most accessible and succinct source for this, in his question on heresy from the Summa which frobert has already quoted.) St. Thomas More himself was involved in the prosecution of heretics who were not engaging in any violence, including one who was burned simply for possessing heretical books, and another (Thomas Bilney) who was not even a full-blown Protestant but simply held some Protestant-influenced beliefs.So he clearly didn’t think it necessary for a heretic to be violent in order to be executed. Rather, he’s arguing that violence arose historically in response to the violence of heretics, and he’s speculating–clearly aware that he has no actual evidence for this–that maybe if heretics hadn’t been violent the Church would have left them alone. This goes exactly against what you’re trying to argue.

With regard to the broader issue of the Church’s teachings on the death penalty–it’s clear that the Church did not teach until recently that the death penalty should only be used when human life can’t be protected in any other way. That is a new development of the teaching, and some Catholics regard it as non-binding precisely because it seems to contradict the traditional teaching that punishment (including the death penalty) is both justified and even required for retributive reasons. Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote a very thoughtful piece in 2001 attempting to reconcile this apparently new teaching with the historic teaching of the Church. Scalia (to whom I linked above) isn’t convinced, but I think Dulles has a generally strong argument. I’m open to going further in the direction of opposing the death penalty than he does and regarding the historic position as not being part of the Church’s infallible teaching, but I respect Dulles as a sober and orthodox theologian and would like to see a good answer from a more “liberal” position before endorsing that position.

At any rate, the point is that however we reconcile the current teaching with the past teaching, the past teaching did not ever state that retribution was an insufficient ground for the death penalty by itself. And that applied to heresy as to other grave crimes.

Edwin

Blessed John Henry Newman, I think it was, wrote (I can’t recall the context) that, had he been obliged to witness an auto-da-fe, it would have been the death of him. I think that’s the common feeling of things in the present.

I don’t trust my own senses in this regard, since the majority of people of my parents’ generation and older were perfectly happy with the moral rectitude of incinerating 300,000 Japanese people with two bombs; and that half the country I was raised in enthusiastically supported a distant war in which atrocities of napalm burning and chemical gassing (as defoliation) were the order of the day. A good many people who were sensitive to those problems have, in the 40+ years since abortion was legalized, become as blithe and indifferent to that continuing crime as their recent ancestors were to those of slavery.

The matter of handing over convicted heretics for the death penalty didn’t unduly trouble people who lived in a non-mobile, highly structured society in which the decision to embrace heresy was much more conscious, in which a person would have to do more than simply affirm a teaching in the face of condemnation – they would be essentially encouraging all the secondary and tertiary acts involved in it, and it would’ve been understood that this was the case, even when theologians made the argument for the execution of heretics on narrower grounds.
My response is similar to Paul Pennyfeather's at the end of Evelyn Waugh's "Decline and Fall" -- having been sent down from Oxford after being victimized by a club prank, the protagonist endures a sort of modern inferno; he finally returns to Oxford having assumed a new identity, where he safely ensconces himself in theological study, and concludes, on reading about some early heresy "Quite right to suppress them."

 

[frobert]

The matter of handing over convicted heretics for the death penalty didn’t unduly trouble people who lived in a non-mobile, highly structured society in which the decision to embrace heresy was much more conscious, in which a person would have to do more than simply affirm a teaching in the face of condemnation – they would be essentially encouraging all the secondary and tertiary acts involved in it, and it would’ve been understood that this was the case, even when theologians made the argument for the execution of heretics on narrower grounds.

It is not clear to me of what you are saying. To me it sounds as if you are excusing the theologians of culpability of handing over of heretics to civil authorities knowing that they would be killed because average people did not object and may have even encouraged it?

 

[steve_b]

As I said, Luther didn’t deny any of these things. Yet he still said that heretics shouldn’t be burned. Hence, he clearly didn’t mean what you are talking about. You are then left with the argument that Luther was talking about one thing and the Pope was correcting him because his words could be taken to mean something Luther didn’t intend.

Bare with me here

once the will of the HS is brought into burning heretics, that’s making things very specific…agreed? When the HS is involved in the example,

ISTM

• one THEN has to look at all of salvation history up to the day, to see if God ever burned heretics…agreed?
• then one has to consider, NOT just judgement day, as in the end of the world scenerio, but once each person dies they are immediately judged by Jesus, and depending on the state of their soul, it’s either heaven or hell for them …true?

I need to ask, you’re saying Luther has no problem with God burning heretics. Are you saying he changed his mind then?

I previously asked, if Luther says heretics were NOT to be burned, was Luther then putting God on trial for what He did in those OT references previously posted?

You mention you have problems taking Sodom and Gomorrah literally. Considering the topic of the thread, the example of S & G as OT example of God burning heretics is then removed from consideration for anyone who doesn’t see that event as an act of God but rather something else like an unfortunate act of nature or happenstance…agreed?
C:

That’s extremely far-fetched. There is no evidence for this interpretation whatever. It makes no sense in the historical context.

Are you speaking of my statement

“Considering God razed (burned) those cities and everything in them, it’s proof God burning heretics is NOT against the will of the HS”.
C:

Why doesn’t that make sense? Luther clearly was referring to the burning of heretics by Christian civil authorities as a punishment for the crime of heresy, with the full approval and collaboration of the Church.

That’s not the sentence being debated. The statement is “burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit”?

If what you say is what Luther actually said, why isn’t that the sentence in Exsurge Domine, and thus the sentence we’re discussing? If otoh it’s Luther’s intent, and as you admit, Luther had NO problems laying into the Church in the most graphic ways, why did he not just say “burning heretics by either the civil authorities, or the approval of the Catholic Church, is against the will of the HS”?

Not only that,

Luther was given ~7 months to respond to the list of errors listed in Exsurge Domine. He didn’t respond. He didn’t clarify anything. He made no corrections for misunderstandings if there were any. Instead he said nothing. So as a result, 7 months after Exsurge Domine, came the excommunication. Look at the language used in Decet Romanum Pontificem . It wasn’t a knee jerk reaction but a genuine attempt to work with Luther. As we can see, that sentiment didn’t go both ways.

Now given the topic, if the Church was hell bent on burning heretics, why wasn’t even a hint of it made with burning Luther? Luther wasn’t only a heretic but also caused schism as the document stated. That stuff he’s guilty of, doesn’t just happen. It had been going on for years before these documents were written.
C:

Not at all. I believe–not assume, but believe based on good evidence–that the standard practice was to hand over for death any heretic who either refused to repent or repeatedly went back to heresy after claiming to repent.

Haven’t others brought up the issue of violent heretics vs peaceful ones? I haven’t read every one of your responses to others, so if you answered this already could you point me to that post. Thanks in advance
C:

But that doesn’t change the indisputable historical fact that the standard way of dealing with heretics during this period was to attempt to get them to repent, and if they didn’t (or if they repeatedly relapsed) hand them over to civil authorities for execution.

If that was the case, given what Luther did, I ask the obvious, why wasn’t Luther on the list to be executed?

 

[Contarini]

Bare with me here

once the will of the HS is brought into burning heretics, that’s making things very specific…agreed? When the HS is involved in the example,

ISTM

• one THEN has to look at all of salvation history up to the day, to see if God ever burned heretics…agreed?

No. Not agreed at all. Because it’s quite obvious, historically, that Luther wasn’t talking about that and that Leo knew he wasn’t.

Here I think is the problem: you are reading this like a lawyer rather than a historian. You’re looking for loopholes and technical language. I’m reading it with the aim of figuring out what it most likely meant to Luther and Leo. And your interpretation makes no sense in that context at all.

Now if I were arguing, or if some other person were to argue, that Exsurge Domine or the constitutions of Lateran IV disprove the Church’s infallibility, then your approach would be legitimate (though I think the simpler approach is simply to deny that either of these texts are infallible). But that’s not what I’m claiming at all. I originally mentioned this in passing as part of the cultural context in which Luther’s own verbal violence has to be understood.

If what you say is what Luther actually said, why isn’t that the sentence in Exsurge Domine, and thus the sentence we’re discussing? If otoh it’s Luther’s intent, and as you admit, Luther had NO problems laying into the Church in the most graphic ways, why did he not just say “burning heretics by either the civil authorities, or the approval of the Catholic Church, is against the will of the HS”?

Well, I for one don’t know exactly what Luther said and what the context was. He may have said it more clearly. But he may not have, because the phrase as it stands was perfectly clear in his day. And frankly it’s clear today except to people like you who are determined for their own ideological reasons to force the words to mean something different. Everyone knew that burning was the standard punishment for heretics–a civil punishment administered by civil authorities, sometimes to those whom they had tried themselves and sometimes to those whom Church courts had handed over to them. It didn’t need to be clarified in the way you suggest.

Find me one historian (not an apologist, a historian) who agrees with your interpretation.

Luther was given ~7 months to respond to the list of errors listed in Exsurge Domine. He didn’t respond. He didn’t clarify anything. He made no corrections for misunderstandings if there were any.

Exactly. Since we both agree that Luther certainly didn’t deny that God burns heretics in hell or that God had burned unbelievers in the OT, if your interpretation of the bull were correct one would expect Luther to have protested against being misrepresented. But he didn’t, for the simple reason that both he and the Pope and everyone else (and everyone today with any understanding of the historical context o the sixteenth century) knew perfectly well that the “burning” in question was the civil punishment inflicted on impenitent or relapsed heretics.

Now given the topic, if the Church was hell bent on burning heretics, why wasn’t even a hint of it made with burning Luther?

What on earth do you mean? Of course there was a lot more than a “hint” of burning Luther. Luther lived his entire life from that point on (and as you note, for several years before that, since some people had certainly been calling him a heretic ever since the 95 Theses) under the threat of being burned at the stake if he fell into the hands of civil authorities loyal to Rome. The only reason he wasn’t arrested and executed at Worms in 1521 was that the emperor had given him a safe-conduct (otherwise he wouldn’t have gone). Even so, Luther went to Worms well aware that he quite possibly would never come back, and there were people who advised Charles to break the safe-conduct, as his predecessor Sigismund had done with John Hus more than a century earlier. Charles, to his credit, refused to do this. After Worms Luther was “kidnapped” and hidden away in the Wartburg by his overlord Elector Frederick precisely so that he wouldn’t be burned at the stake. He survived and died a natural death only because Frederick and other sympathetic rulers protected him. If any ruler who recognized the authority of Exsurge Domine had ever caught him, he would almost certainly have been killed.

Haven’t others brought up the issue of violent heretics vs peaceful ones?

Yes, dmar brought it up, and I responded in post 22. St. Thomas More makes that distinction, and I"m glad to see that he did, since it shows that he did have some conscience on the matter. But he doesn’t say that only violent heretics are executed–he says that perhaps if heretics hadn’t been violent in the first place the Church would never have persecuted them. That’s pretty weak. Heretics weren’t burned for being violent, though of course the more politically threatening or violent they were the more likely they were to get into trouble. They were burned for obstinately denying a truth taught by the Church. And plenty of heretics who were burned–including some prosecuted by St. Thomas More himself–hadn’t done anything violent. This defense just won’t stand.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

No. Not agreed at all. Because it’s quite obvious, historically, that Luther wasn’t talking about that and that Leo knew he wasn’t.

Contarini:

Well, I for one don’t know exactly what Luther said and what the context was. He may have said it more clearly. But he may not have, because the phrase as it stands was perfectly clear in his day.

Contarini:

And frankly it’s clear today except to people like you who are determined for their own ideological reasons to force the words to mean something different. Everyone knew that burning was the standard punishment for heretics–a civil punishment administered by civil authorities, sometimes to those whom they had tried themselves and sometimes to those whom Church courts had handed over to them. It didn’t need to be clarified in the way you suggest.

Find me one historian (not an apologist, a historian) who agrees with your interpretation.

You say you don’t know what Luther said other than the quote we are discussing. Maybe you can show the exact quote from “historians” of what Luther actually said. Obviously there is disagreement on subject matter

As far as I know Luther had multiple medical problems due to his life style, but died in his early 60’s of presumably natural causes in his own bed, not execution. He died more than 20+ years after he caused all his schism and heresy.

According to you, Luther + all his followers should have all been execurted as heretics because that was the culture of the day. Add to that all the “historians” would agree with each other and you, that Luther and all his followers should have been executed. So what happened? If your polemic is true, and if this is the current culture, why wasn’t he executed?

To your other point Re: “historians” I find historians also acting like apologists. Weren’t you for example telling someone in a previous post that you were a historian or at least a professor of history?

Are you here as a historian or apologist, or both?
C:

Exactly. Since we both agree that Luther certainly didn’t deny that God burns heretics in hell or that God had burned unbelievers in the OT, if your interpretation of the bull were correct one would expect Luther to have protested against being misrepresented. But he didn’t, for the simple reason that both he and the Pope and everyone else (and everyone today with any understanding of the historical context o the sixteenth century) knew perfectly well that the “burning” in question was the civil punishment inflicted on impenitent or relapsed heretics.

Wait a minute!. Luther didn’t respond to Exsurge Domine OR Decet Romanum Pontificem. When Luther was excommunicated, he did nothing about that either. So while I expect a rational person to respond to such decisions against them, Luther didn’t respond. You know that excommunication is NOT designed to be permanent but a wakeup call. And one can remove excommunication if they so desire…correct? But Luther apparantly did nothing about that. Instead he died @ 3 a.m. apparantly cursing the Catholic Church and the papacy.
C:

What on earth do you mean? Of course there was a lot more than a “hint” of burning Luther. Luther lived his entire life from that point on (and as you note, for several years before that, since some people had certainly been calling him a heretic ever since the 95 Theses) under the threat of being burned at the stake if he fell into the hands of civil authorities loyal to Rome.

The only reason he wasn’t arrested and executed at Worms in 1521 was that the emperor had given him a safe-conduct (otherwise he wouldn’t have gone).

Isn’t the emperor the emperor over his entire empire and not just a city? If Luther wasn’t arrested and executed where he lived, in the emperors territory, then maybe it’s possible, Luther was paranoid.
C:

After Worms Luther was “kidnapped” and hidden away in the Wartburg by his overlord Elector Frederick precisely so that he wouldn’t be burned at the stake. He survived and died a natural death only because Frederick and other sympathetic rulers protected him. If any ruler who recognized the authority of Exsurge Domine had ever caught him, he would almost certainly have been killed.

skipping down to “The year’s sojourn in the Wartburg marks a new and decisive period in his life” in this link, would you agree with this account?

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Martin_Luther
C:

Yes, dmar brought it up, and I responded in post 22. St. Thomas More makes that distinction, and I"m glad to see that he did, since it shows that he did have some conscience on the matter. But he doesn’t say that only violent heretics are executed–he says that perhaps if heretics hadn’t been violent in the first place the Church would never have persecuted them. That’s pretty weak. Heretics weren’t burned for being violent, though of course the more politically threatening or violent they were the more likely they were to get into trouble. They were burned for obstinately denying a truth taught by the Church. And plenty of heretics who were burned–including some prosecuted by St. Thomas More himself–hadn’t done anything violent. This defense just won’t stand.

moving from Germany to England & Henry VIII, maybe we should stick with Luther until everybody is satisfied.

 

[Goya]

…

According to you, Luther + all his followers should have all been executed as heretics because that was the culture of the day. Add to that all the “historians” would agree with each other and you, that*** Luther and all his followers should have been executed***. So what happened? If your polemic is true, and if this is the current culture, why wasn’t he executed?

…

 

[Genesis315]

The condemnation in Exsurge Domine merely asserts that a contradictory exists, not that the contrary is therefore always true. Therefore, there can be cases where it is consonant with the will of the Spirit for public authority to execute a heretic, but this does not mean that to do so is always the will of the Spirit.

Archbishop John Hughes of New York in the 19th century debated a Protestant minister on this topic, since the Protestants feared that Catholics coming to power would mean their deaths. Here is how he explained why the execution of heretics was done when it was, citing the Lateran canons in the OP (note, it seems here that capital punishment in the instances described below would fall within the guidelines in the Roman Catechism and the CCC):
Archbishop Hughes:

We must now turn to the Council of Lateran. The errors of the Albigenses were referred to, and condemned in the first and second canons. The object of the third canon, now in question, was to check the spread of those errors, and the progress of slaughter and desolation, which the Albigenses, on every opportunity, for two hundred years before, had not ceased to perpetrate. It was also to maintain the rights of sovereigns against the factious lords, who encouraged the excesses of the ‘Albigenses, for their own political purposes. Besides the bishops and abbots, there were at the council ambassadors representing the temporal sovereigns of Germany, Constantinople, England, France, Hungary, Arragon, Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus; besides those of many other inferior states. Now the wording of the canon shows its limitation; first, to the Albigensian heretics alone; and, secondly, to the "secular powers present’’ at the council. The gentleman on a former occasion thought it advisable, in making the quotation, to suppress the word “present.” Having been exposed for this, he now inserts it, and thereby mars his whole purpose, which was to extend the meaning of the text to all secular powers, whether absent or present. Now the fact is, that so far from its being the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and so far from its being an enactment of universal approbation, it never was put in force against any other heretics besides the Albigenses, nor even against them, except in the departments of the three counts mentioned above, who encouraged the outrages of these enemiesof the human species. Its origin was owing to the crimes of those against whom it was specifically and exclusively enacted.

He returned to this topic again the next session of the debate:
Archbishop 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.”

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from my previous post…

Likewise, earlier, St. Robert Bellarmine, in De Laicis, noted that the death penalty was only used when all other methods failed to redress the disorder introduced into society by the heretic:
St. Robert Bellarmine:

Secondly, experience teaches that there is no other remedy; for the Church proceeded gradually, and tried all remedies; first, it fines, then exile, finally, it was driven to the penalty of death; for the heretics show contempt for excommunication and call them “cold thunderbolts;” if you threaten the penalty of fines, they neither fear God nor revere men, since they know that ignorant people will be found who will believe them and feed them. If you confine them to prison or send them into exile, they will corrupt their neighbors with their speech and those who are far away with their books. Therefore, there is only one remedy, send them timely to their place.

See also this portion of a work by Archbishop von Ketteler which addresses why such punishments would no longer be justifiable given the current make-up of societies.

opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07…-part-iii.html

 

[frobert]

continued from my previous post…

Likewise, earlier, St. Robert Bellarmine, in De Laicis, noted that the death penalty was only used when all other methods failed to redress the disorder introduced into society by the heretic:

See also this portion of a work by Archbishop von Ketteler which addresses why such punishments would no longer be justifiable given the current make-up of societies.

opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07…-part-iii.html

Just for clarification. You appear to be saying that at the period in question in the case of heresy that the end justified the means but today that the means do not justify the ends.

 

[Genesis315]

Just for clarification. You appear to be saying that at the period in question in the case of heresy that the end justified the means but today that the means do not justify the ends.

The ends at stake are different. The Church teaches that public authority has been given the right by God to use lethal force for some ends, but not others. As in all cases where the Church teaches public authority has the right to use lethal force (the death penalty, wars, defensive actions by police, etc.), an analysis has be carried out by said authority to determine if such means are in fact legitimate in those circumstances or if they are not, given the ends sought.

I’m not sure if you had a chance yet, but read what Archbishops von Kettler and Hughes wrote in my posts above concerning the effects of such heresies on medieval societies and compare the effect to that of, say, a diversity of creeds in a pluralistic society, like the US in the 20th century. The ends which public authority is permitted to achieve with lethal force are simply not present in the latter.

I would even say that, with hindsight, some past uses of such force may be argued to not objectively have been justified (ie the people at the time misjudged the situation for whatever reason), but that doesn’t negate the general principle that such use is not absolutely forbidden in all circumstances.

It should also be noted that this principle is not negated by the Church’s teaching on religious liberty, since the Church does not teach an unlimited liberty in this regard, but one that must be limited by public authority according to the needs of the common good (understood not in a positivist manner, but according to truth and the objective moral order).

 

[frobert]

The ends at stake are different. The Church teaches that public authority has been given the right by God to use lethal force for some ends, but not others. As in all cases where the Church teaches public authority has the right to use lethal force (the death penalty, wars, defensive actions by police, etc.), an analysis has be carried out by said authority to determine if such means are in fact legitimate in those circumstances or if they are not, given the ends sought.

I’m not sure if you had a chance yet, but read what Archbishops von Kettler and Hughes wrote in my posts above concerning the effects of such heresies on medieval societies and compare the effect to that of, say, a diversity of creeds in a pluralistic society, like the US in the 20th century. The ends which public authority is permitted to achieve with lethal force are simply not present in the latter.

I would even say that, with hindsight, some past uses of such force may be argued to not objectively have been justified (ie the people at the time misjudged the situation for whatever reason), but that doesn’t negate the general principle that such use is not absolutely forbidden in all circumstances.

It should also be noted that this principle is not negated by the Church’s teaching on religious liberty, since the Church does not teach an unlimited liberty in this regard, but one that must be limited by public authority according to the needs of the common good (understood not in a positivist manner, but according to truth and the objective moral order).

Thank you for your response, I found the references interesting. I also came across an account that you might find an interesting read.

THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870
CHAPTER 12. The Fourth General Council of the Lateran, 1215
A History of the General Councils - AD 325 through AD 1870 - Mgr. Philip Hughes

Back to my post. It does appear that I did read your post correctly in that the CC’s rational for the means, lethal force, was justified by the ends of stopping the spread of heretics. I have problems with this type of thinking, that the ends justifies the means. The CC claims to be a church of revelation, apparently they didn’t receive a revelation about heretics, or misunderstood it or totally ignored and instead acted in the same manner as an authoritarian government. You do agree that in hindsight such force may be argued to not objectively have been justified.

I am unable to be as sanguine about it as many of the apologists. I think that Pope John Paul II felt the same in that he apologized for the Church’s role in burnings at the stake. The apologists, in their effort to dismiss culpability convey the impression that the CC was quite similar to an authoritarian kingship.

See americamagazine.org/issue/637/other-things/facing-inquisition"]Facing the Inquisition: A pope seeks pardon. for a balanced account.

 

[steve_b]

I am unable to be as sanguine about it as many of the apologists. I think that Pope John Paul II felt the same in that he apologized for the Church’s role in burnings at the stake. The apologists, in their effort to dismiss culpability convey the impression that the CC was quite similar to an authoritarian kingship.

See americamagazine.org/issue/637/other-things/facing-inquisition"]Facing the Inquisition: A pope seeks pardon

. for a balanced account.

I wasn’t aware of anyone dismissing culpability?

Also. the link you provided Re: the pope doesn’t, open for me. I would just add, JPII also apologised to the Orthodox patriarch for the Crusaders sacking of Constantinople as well. Even though Pope Innocent at the time excommunicated all the crusaders who participated in that event.

My question about all this is, where is the apology from the Orthodox for THEIR sins against the Catholics particularly the massacre of Latins in Constantinoiple 22 years prior, that some argue precipitated to a great extent what the Crusaders did later? #[126 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8743324&postcount=126)

there is an internal link in that link Re: reference to Crusader encyclopedia article, that no longer works. The link that works to the article is here http://archive.is/81CV

Since you bring this up Re: apologies, where is the Protestant apology for their sins against Catholics, particularly burning Catholics at the stake during the Protestant revolt?

The problem with asking that question is, the same as it is in asking the Orthodox for a return apology for their sins. NO ONE speaks for the Orthodox, NOR does ONE for the Protestants, NOR can ONE ever speak for either of those groups, because Orthodox aren’t one in themselves, and the Protestants … well, that’s division on steroids.

Point being, what started this conversation we’re having, which originated on another thread is Luther’s comment

“burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit”

So the question is, did God ever reduce the population of various types of dissident people in the OT? The answer is yes.

**by water, by fire, by angelic intervention, by the (levitical priesthood) **

• Noah and the flood
• Sodom & Gomorrah
• Passover in Egypt

and by the sword Exodus 32:25-27

 

[frobert]

I wasn’t aware of anyone dismissing culpability?

Also. the link you provided Re: the pope doesn’t, open for me. I would just add, JPII also apologised to the Orthodox patriarch for the Crusaders sacking of Constantinople as well. Even though Pope Innocent at the time excommunicated all the crusaders who participated in that event.

My question about all this is, where is the apology from the Orthodox for THEIR sins against the Catholics particularly the massacre of Latins in Constantinoiple 22 years prior, that some argue precipitated to a great extent what the Crusaders did later? #[126 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8743324&postcount=126)

there is an internal link in that link Re: reference to Crusader encyclopedia article, that no longer works. The link that works to the article is here http://archive.is/81CV

Since you bring this up Re: apologies, where is the Protestant apology for their sins against Catholics, particularly burning Catholics at the stake during the Protestant revolt?

The problem with asking that question is, the same as it is in asking the Orthodox for a return apology for their sins. NO ONE speaks for the Orthodox, NOR does ONE for the Protestants, NOR can ONE ever speak for either of those groups, because Orthodox aren’t one in themselves, and the Protestants … well, that’s division on steroids.

Point being, what started this conversation we’re having, which originated on another thread is Luther’s comment

“burning heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit”

So the question is, did God ever reduce the population of various types of dissident people in the OT? The answer is yes.

**by water, by fire, by angelic intervention, by the (levitical priesthood) **

• Noah and the flood
• Sodom & Gomorrah
• Passover in Egypt

and by the sword Exodus 32:25-27

I believe you misunderstood the intent of my post. I was not defending any actions or inactions of popes or any particular denominations. My intent was the downplaying of culpability by apologists of the atrocities against heretics which you also appear to have similar thoughts.

Here is the correct link, I inadvertently doubled the URL.

americamagazine.org/issue/637/other-things/facing-inquisition

 

[steve_b]

I believe you misunderstood the intent of my post. I was not defending any actions or inactions of popes or any particular denominations. My intent was the downplaying of culpability by apologists of the atrocities against heretics which you also appear to have similar thoughts.

Here is the correct link, I inadvertently doubled the URL.

americamagazine.org/issue/637/other-things/facing-inquisition

If I misunderstand please explain.

I started my response with “I wasn’t aware of anyone dismissing culpability”

if you disagree with my statement, then that’s the time IMV to give actual posts from those you think give examples that prove your point…agreed?

Now if Protestants are only pointing their fingers at Catholics on this, as if this is only a Catholic issue, and not Protestants as well, then we DO have an example of one side overplaying their hand, and in effect dismissing their own culpability.

That’s why I brought up the example of Constantinople (with links) and what the crusaders did back in 1204. Orthodox and Protestants both IMV, exaggerate the roll Catholics played in these respective histories. The Orthodox for example blame Catholics for what happend to Constantinople by the Crusaders. They don’t forget and they don’t forgive Catholics. In that episode ~2000 Byzantines were killed in the sacking of Constantinople. BUT they forget or ignore, what Orthodox did 22 years earlier in Constantinople to Catholic Latins in Constantinople, where they slaughtered 50,000 Catholics and sold their children off to the Muslims as slaves, … I would ask, where is this in their memory bank? And look at the proportions involved? Convenient and collective amnesia about their actions? Go back and review the links I gave

Point being, amnesia by Protestants regarding their sins against Catholics during the Protestant revolt, and amnesia by Orthodox for their sins against Catholics…while JPII apologised to Orthodox and Protestants for Catholics and the part Catholics played in various episodes in history, where are the reciprocal apologies from Orthodox and Protestants to Catholics for their parts against Catholics? Isn’t it supposed to go bothways?

 

[frobert]

If I misunderstand please explain.

I started my response with “I wasn’t aware of anyone dismissing culpability”

if you disagree with my statement, then that’s the time IMV to give actual posts from those you think give examples that prove your point…agreed?

Have you followed the link: americamagazine.org/issue/637/other-things/facing-inquisition ?

Point being, amnesia by Protestants regarding their sins against Catholics during the Protestant revolt, and amnesia by Orthodox for their sins against Catholics…while JPII apologised to Orthodox and Protestants for Catholics and the part Catholics played in various episodes in history, where are the reciprocal apologies from Orthodox and Protestants to Catholics for their parts against Catholics? Isn’t it supposed to go bothways?

Good question. Where are they? You appear to be accusing me of agreeing you?

Peace…