Was the burning of heretics justified?

[BelFarfalla]

If the church and state were two totally different entities how was it treason and punishable by death?

There have been a lot of exaggerated information published about the inquisition over the centuries. … much of it has been fantastical stories of things that never happened. These accounts put the death toll of the inquisitions (there was not one inquisition but several) in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. These numbers are just false. In recent decades people have actually started to look through the records of the court systems and the Church instead of just rehashing tarsh like Foxe’s books. As it turns out the actual death toll is far lower then the popular myths claim. The inquisitions were held from some time in the 1100’s to about 1834. Total death toll is between 3,000 and 5,000. That’s for around 700 years, all over Europe.

The inquisitor of the Cathar’s inquisition has been trashed by history attribution hundreds of deaths to his court. The truth of the matter is that out of the 5000 cases that went through his court, 42 were executed. The Cathers believed, among other strange things, that suicide was a good thing. Their clergy held ceremonies in which a person became a ‘perfect’. Then if they choose they could either commit suicide through starvation and become a witness, or have someone suffocate them and become a martyr. Only their highest clergy could assist in these ritualistic suicide/murders. I wonder how many of those 42 who were executed were people who committing these crimes disguised as religious practice? Further, the Cathars were not all that peaceful. They did things like kill Catholic clergy. I wonder how many of those 42 were murders of this type two. Sometimes the civil courts would arrest someone how committed a crime like this. They would assign a civil punishment to them but then hand them over to the Church for a bit so that the Church could determine the extent of there heresy too.

It’s very easy to sit here hundreds of years later and say that these people were executed only because of ideas. There is a very good chance, with only 42 out of 5000 executed… that those 42 had done something really really bad. I’d love to see the court records to see if there are things about these cases that would, in my mind justify the punishment they got.

In the non-Spanish Catholic inquisitions, I believe that had the Church not stepped in and demanded that they determine who was a heretic and not, that the civil authorities would have executed many times more people. The civil authorities would have simply used it as a tool to get rid of anyone who bothered them.

The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1476 to 1834. During that time 125,000 people were tired by the inquisition. Of them, about 1% was executed. That’s about 1,250 people. This was the bloodiest of the inquisitions. Once the pope realized what was going on, he objected and told the Spanish crown to stop it. They did not listen. Much of the inquisition and actually carried about by the civil government and not the Church. So much of it was not even an inquisition carried out by the Church. I do know that at the time Spain had a real problem with Muslims and Jews working with the Muslims who previously had conquered Spain to help them reconquer Spain. The Spanish crown had a lot of spies on its hands who pretended to be Christian to gain access to information with the intent to overthrow the crown. Eventually the Spanish Crown decided that the old rule of everyone being of the same religion leads to more civil contentment… so they decided on an inquisition to get rid of their enemies. This is indeed treason and in any society, even today, the death penalty is considered to be justified.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Very good point, wish I had thought of it. Even back in the Dark Ages, there were less cruel means of execution than burning people to death.

Since it was the civil authorities who choose to burn poeple to death, this will need to be taken up with them. The Catholic Church has never burned anyone.

 

[rr1213]

Since it was the civil authorities who choose to burn poeple to death, this will need to be taken up with them. The Catholic Church has never burned anyone.

This assertion has been made, and responded, to about a million times in this thread. Read all the posts above.

 

[BelFarfalla]

This assertion has been made, and responded, to about a million times in this thread. Read all the posts above.

I have read all of the posts above. This is an important point that some want to set aside.

 

[Mirdath]

The inquisitor of the Cathar’s inquisition has been trashed by history attribution hundreds of deaths to his court. The truth of the matter is that out of the 5000 cases that went through his court, 42 were executed. The Cathers believed, among other strange things, that suicide was a good thing. Their clergy held ceremonies in which a person became a ‘perfect’. Then if they choose they could either commit suicide through starvation and become a witness, or have someone suffocate them and become a martyr. Only their highest clergy could assist in these ritualistic suicide/murders. I wonder how many of those 42 who were executed were people who committing these crimes disguised as religious practice? Further, the Cathars were not all that peaceful. They did things like kill Catholic clergy. I wonder how many of those 42 were murders of this type two. Sometimes the civil courts would arrest someone how committed a crime like this. They would assign a civil punishment to them but then hand them over to the Church for a bit so that the Church could determine the extent of there heresy too.

Again with the Albigensian blood libel? You amaze me.

And as I recall, there was no ‘Cathar Inquisition’, although papal legates attempted to ‘reconvert’ them – their suppression took the form of a crusade, a military undertaking. The commander of the Crusaders (and Cistercian abbot of Citeaux), Arnaud-Amaury, said this to his troops before the town of Beziers was taken in the first battle of the war: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Kill them all – God will know his own. Is this sentiment a shining example of moral behavior and a right exercise of justice to you?

 

[rr1213]

I have read all of the posts above. This is an important point that some want to set aside.

It is an irrelevant point because the Church is equally complicit with the State even if the Church did not (figuratively speaking) pull the trigger. The Church was morally complicit because it was the Church making the decision whether someone is a heretic and the Church handing the heretic over to the government with full knowledge that the heretic will be tortured to death. In that case, both Church and State are guilty…just as when the High Priests handed Christ over to the Romans. Both the Jewish Religious establishment and the Roman authority were equally guilty for the sin that followed.

 

[LJN21]

It is an irrelevant point because the Church is equally complicit with the State even if the Church did not (figuratively speaking) pull the trigger. The Church was morally complicit because it was the Church making the decision whether someone is a heretic and the Church handing the heretic over to the government with full knowledge that the heretic will be tortured to death. In that case, both Church and State are guilty…just as when the High Priests handed Christ over to the Romans. Both the Jewish Religious establishment and the Roman authority were equally guilty for the sin that followed.

Cause Christ was inoccent and they both knew it.

 

[Mirdath]

Cause Christ was inoccent and they both knew it.

Untrue. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah – by the standards of the Sanhedrin, he was a heretic and a madman. He claimed to be God! No medieval heretic I know of made such a wild claim!

As for the Romans, they thought the whole thing was an overreaction. It was Pilate who said ‘this is an innocent man’, not Caiaphas – to the former, it was provincial trouble he didn’t want to get involved in (and that is why he stepped out of the way); to the latter, it was a matter of someone abusing his religion.

 

[BelFarfalla]

It is an irrelevant point because the Church is equally complicit with the State even if the Church did not (figuratively speaking) pull the trigger. The Church was morally complicit because it was the Church making the decision whether someone is a heretic and the Church handing the heretic over to the government with full knowledge that the heretic will be tortured to death. In that case, both Church and State are guilty…just as when the High Priests handed Christ over to the Romans. Both the Jewish Religious establishment and the Roman authority were equally guilty for the sin that followed.

So your objection it the way they were executed?

 

[Sixtus]

rr1213 said:

Church handing the heretic over to the government with full knowledge that the heretic will be tortured to death.

Of course you have proof of that.

…so, what are you waiting for? Let’s see it!

 

[Sixtus]

rr1213 also said;

Ok. So all you are saying is that the Church exercised due process when it
decided that people should be killed for their religious beliefs

what they neglected to say was that the Episcopalians have killed 10 times more for their religious beliefs than the Catholic Church! THAT IS A FACT AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT

 

[KarenNC]

**The guillotine was a whole lot less humane than most people imagine. I can only think that its inventor had never seen a chicken running 'round with its head cut of, or he would have realized that a not inconsiderable number of those beheaded were going to be awake & aware when their heads fell into the baskets. You will never make me believe that that was “humane”. Not even relatively so. **

The guillotine was considered a more humane method of execution than being beheaded by a person with an axe, as it was quicker, done more cleanly, not as apt to miss or not cut deeply enough the first time to sever the spinal cord, etc. It helped lessen human error.

It was more humane than many possible forms of execution or death inflicted by another. It was more humane than hanging someone whose neck did not break immediately, causing them to slowly strangle. It was more humane than piling a bunch of wood around someone’s feet and roasting them alive from the feet up. It was more humane than tying each limb to a different animal and set them running in different directions. It was more humane than giving someone a slow-acting poison. It was more humane than cutting off a limb or gutting them and leaving them to slowly bleed to death as often happened in war. It was more humane than pouring boiling oil on them or immersing them in the same. Humans have come up with many, many more inhumane ways to do away with each other, sometimes in the name of the State.

I am not advocating it as a wonderful thing, but much is being bandied about concerning looking at things in their historical context. In its historical context, the guillotine was created as a humane reform.

** It was widely believed that people being burned would lose conscious almost immediately.(Again: I am not defending capital punishment. I’m simply pointing out, that when we consider the state of knowledge at the time, that most people were not out to cause horrific suffering when they burnt folk at the stake. If pain had been their purpose then, (A) there would not have beem any provision for the vast majority to be strangled before burning, and **

One might think that the first couple of screamers as their bodies were consumed by the flames would have put that theory to rest. Why, then, did they simply not just strangle them and be done with it rather than burning. Why risk that someone would be alive when burnt or bother with burning? Were they any less dead after being strangled?

 

[Kevan]

Why, then, did they simply not just strangle them and be done with it rather than burning. Why risk that someone would be alive when burnt or bother with burning? Were they any less dead after being strangled?

Strangling is sooooo boring.

Consider the case of the Anabaptist Michael Sattler. I’ll guarantee ya, when that barbecue was over there were some changed attitudes among some. Not all, of course, because the authorities kept having to kill and kill and kill in the attempt to eradicate anabaptism. But despite those who wouldn’t conform, surely there were others who saw Catholicism in a whole new light after they got done with Sattler and his wife.

A much better show than mere strangling. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.

 

[Ella]

rr1213 also said;

what they neglected to say was that the Episcopalians have killed 10 times more for their religious beliefs than the Catholic Church! THAT IS A FACT AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT

Good grief! Is this supposed to make what the CChurch did OK?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This assertion has been made, and responded, to about a million times in this thread. Read all the posts above.

Since it is impossible to square torturing or burning people alive with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I don’t see how a Christian state (if there can be such a thing) can do it. Still less can I see how a Church (!!!) can be party to such a thing.​

BTW, Ananias & Sapphira died by the judgement of God - not because they were tried & executed by St.Peter; he did not kill them: yet sometimes their deaths in Acts 5 are quoted as a defence of the use of the DP for the punishment of religious error. Paul “deliver[ed] over to satan” such men as Phygellus, Hermogenes, Alexander, Hymenaeus - he did not execute them. Neither did the Fathers: Lactantius & Chrysostom denounced such a thing as severely as Pope Nicolas I did.

The Apostles did not shed the blood of heretics - nor rack or othewise torture them. There is something blasphemous in defending God’s Church with satan’s weapons. Why is the Gospel & its armour not sufficient for that need ? It was, for St.Paul. To use the DP for heresy is a denial of the power of the Cross, because “the arm of flesh” is substituted for it; which degrades the Gospel into a mere worldly ideology, from being a life-giving & liberating message. IMO, that is a far worse error than any heresy.

If the DP for that purpose was right in 1300, why is it wrong now ? If it was wrong in 100, how could it become right by 1300 ?

 

[GKC]

rr1213 also said;

what they neglected to say was that the Episcopalians have killed 10 times more for their religious beliefs than the Catholic Church! THAT IS A FACT AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT

The Episcopalians? Really?

GKC

 

[Theinvisibleman]

Wow is history and Vocab just not taught anymore?

her·e·tic /n. ˈhɛrɪtɪk; adj. ˈhɛrɪtɪk, həˈrɛtɪk/
–noun 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

This aren’t people that just believe something different. They are people living under a Catholic monarchy (No separation of Church and State) that profess to be Catholic that are spreading Heresy that were tried, convicted and executed for treason.

Im under the impression that a heretic is also anyone who dosent believe in what the church teaches, especially other christain denominations.

Another thing, why do you criticize my grammar ? I made no mistakes, unlike you.

 

[rr1213]

So your objection it the way they were executed?

My objection is two fold: (i) that they were punished at all for their faith and (ii) that they were punished in such a cruel fashion.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213 also said;

what they neglected to say was that the Episcopalians have killed 10 times more for their religious beliefs than the Catholic Church! THAT IS A FACT AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT

Sixtus, if you have read ANY of my posts in this thread you will have seen that I find persecution on account of one’s faith to be indefensible no matter who is persecuting who. If the Church of England (not the Episcopalians by the way) killed people on account of heresy it was just as wrong as when it was done by, or indirectly on behalf of, the Catholic Church. Please don’t suggest that I’ve said anything to the contrary.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213 said:
Of course you have proof of that.
…so, what are you waiting for? Let’s see it!

Sure, no problem. Read the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia and you will see that the Church had no illusions as to what would happen to a heretic when the Church handed him over to the State:

"Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did [Gregory IV] admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the Church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment.

Frederick II was of the same opinion; in his Constitution of 1224 he says that heretics convicted by an ecclesiastical court shall, on imperial authority, suffer death by fire (auctoritate nostra ignis iudicio concremandos), and similarly in 1233 “praesentis nostrae legis edicto damnatos mortem pati decernimus.” In this way Gregory IX may be regarded as having had no share either directly or indirectly in the death of condemned heretics. Not so the succeeding popes. In the Bull “Ad exstirpanda” (1252) Innocent IV says:

‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.’

Moreover, he directs that this Bull and the corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statutes under pain of excommunication, which was also visited on those who failed to execute both the papal and the imperial decrees. Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions “Commissis nobis” and “Inconsutibilem tunicam”. The aforesaid Bull “Ad exstirpanda” remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-02), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to he noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy."

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm