Was the burning of heretics justified?

[BelFarfalla]

All of this very much reminds me of arguments I hear about the practice of slavery in the American South.

……
I think the arguments on each topic hold up equally well, to wit, not at all.

For this reason slavery has been outlawed for some time now. It was, by the way, the Christian west that frist outlawed salvery.

We have also outlawed exectuing people for their beliefs and speech. However imprisoning people based on thoughts and beliefs is starting to work its way back into our legal system.

 

[Valke2]

For this reason slavery has been outlawed for some time now. It was, by the way, the Christian west that frist outlawed salvery.

We have also outlawed exectuing people for their beliefs and speech. However imprisoning people based on thoughts and beliefs is starting to work its way back into our legal system.

Cyrus the Great abolished slavery in 539 BCE.

 

[BelFarfalla]

That would have been news to Paul IV & Pius V, both of whom were zealous in their support for the Roman Inquisition, which was restored in 1542. Indeed, Cardinal Alessandrino (as Pius V had been) was a most energetic inquisitor; which was one of the reasons Paul IV admired him so greatly)

In an earlier post I specifically mentioned the popes who I believe were in error… I did not use their names… the ones you mention are they. They authorized the use of torture.

The Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. This is a huge distinction in my mind. The reason? Because it was the secular authorities who made heresy a capital crime and started executing people for heresy in huge numbers. In those days they also execute people for just about everything… even stealing pigs. The Church stepped in, stating that only they had the knowledge and authority to determine who was a heretic and who was not. They also had the obligation to bring people back into the fold.

If the secular authorities had not made heresy a capital crime, executions for heresy alone would not have occurred. If secular authorities has prescribed other punishments for heresy those would have been carried out instead of the executions. The Church’s responsibility lies in abandoning heretics to the secular authorities. Until the abandonment of an accused occurred, the Church was actually protecting the accused from the secular authorities…the secular authorities were more then glad to execute and torture anyone they assumed was a heretic with no questioning (inquisition) and no trial. IMO, the church erred in turning over people whose only ‘crime’ was heresy.

I wonder how much more pressure the Church could have put on secular authorities to change the executions to something else. I’m not sure it would have worked. For example in Spain, at first the Pope sanctioned the Spanish inquisition. When it became evident that it was being used mostly for the political gain of the Spanish crown, the Pope demanded that they stop. The crown ignored the pope and continued. Some mistakenly believe that the Pope ran Europe… He did not.

What is really sad about the executions in the inquisition for those who only were heretics and not guilty of violent crimes or treason is that early in the Church history it was agreed that the death penalty was not consistent with the teachings of Christ. I believe that this is Church doctrine now… I wonder if it was at the time? I

That would have been news to Paul IV & Pius V, both of whom were zealous in their support for the Roman Inquisition, which was restored in 1542. Indeed, Cardinal Alessandrino (as Pius V had been) was a most energetic inquisitor; which was one of the reasons Paul IV admired him so greatly)

Most cases that came before the inquisitions ended up in acquittal or punishments like wearing a cross, attending mass daily, fasting (usually by limiting food choices… no meat for a year), pilgrimages, etc.
The purpose of the Inquisition was to bring people back into the fold… not to roast as many as possible. So since the huge percentage of the work of an inquisitor was to bring people back to the church… I’m not clear from your statement if the Paul IV admired Cardinal Alessandrino for the number of people he turned over to be roasted by the secular authorities or if he admired the number of people brought back into the fold. Your comment is out of context.

 

[BelFarfalla]

As for Protestant brutalities - they might not have happened, had Catholicism not set Protestants an evil example.

My only point in bringing up the brutatlitys by protestants is not to play the “you did it to so na na na na na’ game. It is to point out to protestants that their ancestores were not morally superiour. There are many prodestants who believe that one of the major points of the reformation was that Catholics executed heretics. And then their ancestors broke way from the Church and were beans of morality that never did any such thing. The point is that many people… catholic, secular, prodestant, cathar and on and on did horrible things. We need to look at the time, at how wide spread it is and figure out how to make sure it never happens again. Many anti-Catholics will say that getting rid of the Catholic Church will solve the problem. But the problem has been much larger then the Catholc Church. It is widly acitve in Islamic countries today… only the mostly allow the crowd to be the judge, jury and exectioner.

The question of this thread needs to be directed at all in the past who did this, not only Catholics.

To say the SI was not as bad as sometimes described, is a world away from showing that it (or any other) was positively good. AFAICS, the only proper standard of comparison is the Gospel, because we are meant to be Christians.

SI (Spanish Inquisition?)…. I have never said that the SI was positively good. In fact I’ve said that while it was not as bad as sometimes described, it was out of control.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Cyrus the Great abolished slavery in 539 BCE.

I just read a bit on him… very impressive… no slavery, freedom of religion. Sounds like a man before his time.

Unfortunately his view of things did not carry on very long.

I stand corrected. IN more modern times it was the Christian west who first outlawed slavery.

 

[Sixtus]

Karen NC posted:

I am a Southern American woman. My family has been in this area for over 250 years and I take pride in my heritage and identity.

…and so you should

 

[Sixtus]

Originally Posted by Zooey
Mirdath, there is not one in that list of horrors, that was not used by Protestant rulers against the Catholics.
That is precisely my point. (And I suspect you may have on rose-coloured glasses as to what hanging from town to town entailed; I have been kind in my description).

I support Zooey

 

[Mirdath]

I support Zooey

Does the fact that the Protestants tortured and murdered somehow excuse the Catholics who did the same?

 

[mozart-250]

GREAT POST KarenNC!!!

Amen!

Ironic that the two folks speaking with the most moral clarity on this thread are a self-described neo-pagan and a self-described agnostic.

 

[Mirdath]

Amen!

Quite agreed – it was very well done, and a better analogy than I was aiming for with Jan Hus and the Pope, though that was for a more specific issue.

Ironic that the two folks speaking with the most moral clarity on this thread are a self-described neo-pagan and a self-described agnostic.

You were pretty clear here:

No! The burning of heretics can never be justified.

And we love you too

 

[BelFarfalla]

Does the fact that the Protestants tortured and murdered somehow excuse the Catholics who did the same?

No does not excuse the Catholics. But it does make the protestants hipocrates when they pretend that it only Catholics did it. It also makes their arguement weak when they argue that it is proof that the Catholic Church is valid. None of us here today did any of it. We should all look back at this as a community of Christians, determine what really happened, how to prevent it from ever happening again and then work to make sure it never does reoccur.

 

[Mirdath]

No does not excuse the Catholics. But it does make the protestants hipocrates when they pretend that it only Catholics did it. It also makes their arguement weak when they argue that it is proof that the Catholic Church is valid. None of us here today did any of it. We should all look back at this as a community of Christians, determine what really happened, how to prevent it from ever happening again and then work to make sure it never does reoccur.

Read rr1213’s posts. He’s not pretending anything. If anything, many Catholics are pretending that the torture and murder of people over religious squabbles was moral and good. The Protestants in this thread have represented themselves well and not held back from condemning the actions in their denominations’ pasts; I only wish I could say the same for the Catholics.

 

[BelFarfalla]

No does not excuse the Catholics. But it does make the protestants hypocrites when they pretend that it only Catholics did it. It also makes their arguement weak when they argue that it is proof that the Catholic Church is valid. None of us here today did any of it. We should all look back at this as a community of Christians, determine what really happened, how to prevent it from ever happening again and then work to make sure it never does reoccur.

I started to do a list of how said burning was ok and who said it was not. But a couple of things came up…

350 posts… I don’t have time to go through all of them again

cannot tell from most of the posts who is Catholic and who is not. I wanted to see the diff between what Catholics and non-Catholics said.

I did go through the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread… so far, not of 10 responses… one supports it. All the others either stated it was wrong to execute heretics or simply brought up some historical point. I appeared that most of them were the first 10 posters were Catholics… but who knows.

IMO, you assuming that some support it who do not. For example I think you think that I support it. I do nto support the burning at all. I do not support killing people for their beliefs. I do believe that the death penalty for some crimes is ok… but it has to be stuff like agrevated murder, violent rapes and the worst cases of treason. For example in the case of Huss… On the surface it appears that he should not have been exectuted by my opnion. But I have no idea if there is more to the case or not.

So my short answer to the first question thread is no—there was no justification for burning heretics. There are other ways to deal with heretics.

 

[whatevergirl]

There’s no justification of man killing man…none. Thou shalt not kill didn’t have a disclaimer that said…‘only if they are heretics.’ As Catholics…it doesn’t matter the reasons…we should all be united on that front, I would hope.

 

[Kevan]

Thou shalt not kill didn’t have a disclaimer that said…‘only if they are heretics.’

Well, actually it did. the Hebrew word ratzach is a synonym for the English word “murder,” which is why the Lord used the word “murder” in the gospels when quoting the sixth commandment.

And he who said “Thou shalt not murder” also commanded the killing of many kinds of offenders, one of which was witches.

Quoting the Pentateuch is a dreadfully weak argument against capital punishment.

 

[Mirdath]

]I did go through the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread… so far, not of 10 responses… one supports it. All the others either stated it was wrong to execute heretics or simply brought up some historical point. I appeared that most of them were the first 10 posters were Catholics… but who knows.

Taking the most blatant ones…

First page:

leo123:

But many breaches of Mosaic law were punished by the death penalty, and arguably there could be an argument of necessity in executing a heretic, why should the just execution doctrine only apply to those who might cause physical destruction, why not spiritual?

6glargento:

I agree that today burning heretics WOULD be unacceptable because today we have more alternatives to keeping people in line than execution, but seeing the situation people were in back then I believe that execution may have been nessesary to preserve the true faith.

Third page:

Sixtus:

I stand by the Church’s stance against eradicating that. But sorry to say, have spoken to people on this forum who think the Church should not have intervened. It beggers belief that some folk would rather leave communities to make themselves extinct than bring their leaders to trial to account for themselves

Fourth page:

JesuXPIPassio:

We need to be open to understanding the circumstances of the times and places. Burning by execution was more commonplace back then. So when the Church leaders of the day needed to stomp out dangerous heresies, they would naturally resort to methods that were available to them at the time. For them it was burning at the stake or torture.

Vaclav:

I think that the case in question does meet the standards of doing what was best to protect Christian society. While it is not the path nor outcome anyone would wish to take, the truth is that Christianity and society at that time had to be protected.

fix:

I would think not. The death penalty, by the civil authorities, back then seems perfectly fine considering the way society was structured. In fact, if some cataclysmic event happended to the earth perhaps a new and different societal struture may take shape that would make necessary the death penalty for heresy be taken up again. My point is that penalty is not always wrong.

Fifth page:

Brendan:

A heretic is more dangerous than a murderer. A murderer only kills bodies. A heretic kills souls.

Society is set up to protect persons, not just bodies. We see that in our own secular law, with different (and harsher) punishments for kidnapping vs. stealing a body from a mortuary.

Keikiolu:

The Church, though, was still right in “trying to persuade and if necessary isolate the ‘bad guys’ and ‘innoculate the Flock’ from their influence”.

The fact that the methods chosen by individuals were “not the best” says nothing of the Church’s DUTY to do what they needed to do.

This is far, far too many. It’s sickening to see so many people leap to defend torture and murder. It reflects horribly on the Church’s traditions of moral instruction and charity. How can these people not know better?

So my short answer to the first question thread is no—there was no justification for burning heretics. There are other ways to deal with heretics.

I’m glad we agree on that then

 

[BelFarfalla]

There’s no justification of man killing man…none. Thou shalt not kill didn’t have a disclaimer that said…‘only if they are heretics.’ As Catholics…it doesn’t matter the reasons…we should all be united on that front, I would hope.

I agree with our sentiment.

A more accurate translation of the commandment is "Thou Shall Not Murder.’

Check the Catachism of the Catholic Chruch. There are instances where killing is permissible: Self defense or in defense of the defenseless (to include defensive war), a person who endangers others (like a mass murderer or rapists) when there is no other way to protect society from them, and the state has the right to protect the good of society. The catch is that has to be the last resort, when there are no other options.

 

[Sixtus]

Originally by whatevergirl)—
There’s no justification of man killing man…none. Thou shalt not kill didn’t have a disclaimer that said…‘only if they are heretics.’ As Catholics…]…we should all be united on that front, I would hope.

I agree

 

[BelFarfalla]

Taking the most blatant ones…

I think that you are reading more into some of these responses then the individual posters meant… for example look at the following….

**Sixtus Catholic **

I stand by the Church’s stance against eradicating that. But sorry to say, have spoken to people on this forum who think the Church should not have intervened. It beggers belief that some folk would rather leave communities to make themselves extinct than bring their leaders to trial to account for themselves

There’s no justification of man killing man…none. Thou shalt not kill didn’t have a disclaimer that said…‘only if they are heretics.’ As Catholics…it doesn’t matter the reasons…we should all be united on that front, I would hope.
Sixtus;2277029:

I agree

Maybe Sixtus can explain how the two posts relate to each other?

 

[Sixtus]

Barfarfella posted:

I stand by the Church’s stance against eradicating that. But sorry to say, have spoken to people on this forum who think the Church should not have intervened. It beggers belief that some folk would rather leave communities to make themselves extinct than bring their leaders to trial to account for themselves

Did I say that? Wow, have no recollection of it now!

Can you give me a link please?