Trouble with some Saints

[KidShellen]

I don’t doubt the personal sanctity of any saint. But I’m having trouble with the involvement of some saints with the Roman Inquisition. For example, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, and St. Pius V approved of handing over unrepentant heretics over to the state, where they would surely be burned at the stake. While I do agree that heresy should be suppressed, wouldn’t it have been better to indefinitely imprison a heretic rather than hand them over to the state to be executed? I know that these saints wanted their heresies to stop spreading, and that should be applauded, but why allow them to be executed?

Also, another saint I’m having a bit of trouble with is St. Bernardine of Siena. He was a fiery Italian preacher, who preached against ursury, gambling, sodomy, and other immoralities. This is all very good. But he also praised the way some Italian cities brutally executed homosexuals through burning and drawing and quartering

Can someone provide a satisfactory answer? Thanks

 

[Abu]

**From Burning and torture of heretics as it relates to infallibility
Question from Michael Edwards-Ronning on 05-11-2002:
Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 05-13-2002 (EWTN): **
These were, regrettably, standard court procedures of the time, and heresy was severely punished because it was seen as revolution, treason against God (which it is). The Church was not speaking doctrinally, but simply accepting practices of the time. These statements were not specifically moral teachings protected by infallibility. - Dr. Carroll
tinyurl.com/p93rmgs

 

[George_Stegmeir]

When studying history-which is what you are doing when studying the lives of the Saints- you cannot make moral or any other judgments using contemporary standards. If you are judging the behavior of historical individuals, you must judge them in accordance with the behavioral standards in effect during their lifetime, In the case of Canonized Saints, you must judge them only by the religious standards in effect during the time of their canonization.
You can find much of this information in both Catholic and lay encyclopedias.

 

[aTraditionalist]

You should seek out the new studies. I think you’ll find that they tell a different story than what revisionist history has given us. Much of the terrible tragedy of that period is now confirmed to Protestant rumors that were spread amongst the European population to further the schism within the Church.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[dmar198]

I don’t doubt the personal sanctity of any saint. But I’m having trouble with the involvement of some saints with the Roman Inquisition. For example, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, and St. Pius V approved of handing over unrepentant heretics over to the state, where they would surely be burned at the stake. While I do agree that heresy should be suppressed, wouldn’t it have been better to indefinitely imprison a heretic rather than hand them over to the state to be executed?

Sometimes life imprisonment was used instead of execution. Galileo comes to mind as an example of this.

I know that these saints wanted their heresies to stop spreading, and that should be applauded, but why allow them to be executed?

Thankfully, some of the saints involved with these executions wrote down exactly why they did so. St. Thomas More, for example, was in charge with executions in England prior to the apostasy of Henry VIII, and he wrote the following in Dialog Concerning Heresies, Part IV Chapter 13:

“[The princes] never in fact would have resorted so heavily to force and violence against heretics if the violent cruelty first used by the heretics themselves against good Catholic folk had not driven good princes to do it.”

“[A]s I said before, if the heretics had never started with the violence, then even if they had used all the ways they could to lure the people by preaching…yet if they had left violence alone, good Christian people would perhaps all the way up to this day have used less violence toward them than they do now.”

“[F]rom the beginning [heretics] were never by any temporal punishment of their bodies at all harshly treated until they began to be violent themselves.”

“[Therefore] what the Church law on this calls for is good, reasonable, compassionate, and charitable, and in no way desirous of the death of anyone.” (More, Thomas. Dialogue Concerning Heresies. Translated by Gottschalk, Mary. 2006. New York, NY: Scepter Publishers. p. 460-464)

“[For] all the severe punishment of heretics, with which such folk as favor them want so much to render the clergy infamous, is and has been…on account of the great outrages and temporal harms that such heretics have always been wont to make, besides the far surpassing spiritual hurts that they do to people’s souls.” (ibid. Part IV Chapter 18 p. 485)

 

[Cricket2]

I don’t doubt the personal sanctity of any saint. But I’m having trouble with the involvement of some saints with the Roman Inquisition. For example, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, and St. Pius V approved of handing over unrepentant heretics over to the state, where they would surely be burned at the stake. While I do agree that heresy should be suppressed, wouldn’t it have been better to indefinitely imprison a heretic rather than hand them over to the state to be executed? I know that these saints wanted their heresies to stop spreading, and that should be applauded, but why allow them to be executed?

Also, another saint I’m having a bit of trouble with is St. Bernardine of Siena. He was a fiery Italian preacher, who preached against ursury, gambling, sodomy, and other immoralities. This is all very good. But he also praised the way some Italian cities brutally executed homosexuals through burning and drawing and quartering

Can someone provide a satisfactory answer? Thanks

I am not sure that my answer is that “satisfactory.” But, I don’t view these type as Saints. I am not sure that the Church should not take the stand of removing that title from them. The kind of brutality that was seen as acceptable in their era should have been something they were wiser about. It has nothing to do with God.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I think we have to remember that Saints are human too and they are a product of their times. Certain cultural norms were in effect at given points in history that made certain methods of punishment standard to them, but seemingly brutal to us. Sometimes, one finds that although we agree that someone they punished was sinful, their punishment seems far too harsh. Was it in fact too harsh? I don’t know if I can fully judge. Jesus died on the cross in a brutal manner for us.

 

[Cromwell4]

Most Western laws are based on biblical teachings.
In England and Wales buggery was made a capital offense by the Buggery Act in 1533,
In UK the punishment for sodomy/buggery if convicted was the death penalty until 1861. James Pratt and John Smith were the last two Englishmen to be executed for sodomy in 1835. After that it could be life imprisonment until around 1968 when law was repealed.

 

[dmar198]

Sometimes life imprisonment was used instead of execution. Galileo comes to mind as an example of this. Thankfully, some of the saints involved with these executions wrote down exactly why they did so. St. Thomas More, for example, was in charge with executions in England prior to the apostasy of Henry VIII, and he wrote the following in Dialog Concerning Heresies, Part IV Chapter 13:

“[The princes] never in fact would have resorted so heavily to force and violence against heretics if the violent cruelty first used by the heretics themselves against good Catholic folk had not driven good princes to do it.”

“[A]s I said before, if the heretics had never started with the violence, then even if they had used all the ways they could to lure the people by preaching…yet if they had left violence alone, good Christian people would perhaps all the way up to this day have used less violence toward them than they do now.”

“[F]rom the beginning [heretics] were never by any temporal punishment of their bodies at all harshly treated until they began to be violent themselves.”

“[Therefore] what the Church law on this calls for is good, reasonable, compassionate, and charitable, and in no way desirous of the death of anyone.” (More, Thomas. Dialogue Concerning Heresies. Translated by Gottschalk, Mary. 2006. New York, NY: Scepter Publishers. p. 460-464)

“[For] all the severe punishment of heretics, with which such folk as favor them want so much to render the clergy infamous, is and has been…on account of the great outrages and temporal harms that such heretics have always been wont to make, besides the far surpassing spiritual hurts that they do to people’s souls.” (ibid. Part IV Chapter 18 p. 485)

In addition to what I said in the post I just quoted, I also think it’s important to recognize that Church law at the time forbade priests to be involved with executions, to be present when executions took place, or to recommend heretics for execution. Canon 18 of the 12th Ecumenical Council: “No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out.” “[In] the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics.”

 

[KidShellen]

Thank you all for the very helpful replies. Gives me food for thought

 

[johnmann]

Morality isn’t relative so wrong was wrong even if everyone at the time was doing it. I think if we’re being honest, we have to defend at least the moral permissibly of civil punishments for heresy. Whether a particular punishment promotes the common good, i.e., does it actually work, is a matter of prudential judgement. The social calculus can change and saints can err so maybe we can reach a different prudential judgement today but I think we’re whitewashing the faith if we claim that punishing heresy civilly is always automatically immoral.

One significant factor that may help resolve this is that the heretics of the time were formal heretics. They rejected Church teaching. Today, heretics tend to be material heretics. I.e., they don’t believe as the Church teaches but because that’s all they knew, not because they made a decision to reject Church teaching. E.g., someone raised a Protestant since birth. One could argue that material heresy should be treated more leniently.