Was the burning of heretics justified?

[BelFarfalla]

I’m hoping that was a typo for ‘speaking out about.’

:bigyikes: YIKES… yes that was a type-o. Actually it was probably a MS Word auto correct. It was definitely not a Freudian slip. And now I cannot go back and change it.

 

[Mirdath]

But, lets not talk about what we did to those nasty Catholic children, lets talk about what those nasty Catholics did to us!

That is what this thread is for, is it not? Read the title. ‘Was the [Catholic] burning of heretics justified?’ We are not discussing atrocities committed by other groups.

BelFarfalla:

The issue of Beziers is one of war not of the Inquisition. Remeber that this thread is about the inquistions, not about the Crusades.

They are related; the Albigensian Crusade is a direct ancestor of the Inquisitional courts. The acts of the Inquisitions owe a lot to the anti-heretic Crusades.

Also this isn’t just about the Inquisitions, it’s about burning heretics

From the little I know of Arnaud-Amaury, he was a maniac. I believe that he got the idea that such a slaughter was acceptable because of the OT accounts of such slaughters.

Why then was he made papal legate and commander of the Church’s army? Obviously he was approved for those posts.

 

[rr1213]

But, lets not talk about what we did to those nasty Catholic children, lets talk about what those nasty Catholics did to us!

If you read the posts of non-Catholics in this thread I think you would see a constant theme of decrying ALL violence done to people on account of their religious faith (or lack thereof). We just want to see the same acknowledgement from your side. The fact that some of your co-religionists aren’t willing to say the same is more than troubling.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I think that he means burning alive at the stake.

NO NO NO… i do not mean burning alive… it was an MS Word auto correct problem. I obviously misspelled ‘speaking out’ and MS Word ‘fixed’ it for me.

Be ware MS Word auto correct…. it can be evil

 

[rr1213]

NO NO NO… i do not mean burning alive… it was an MS Word auto correct problem. I obviously misspelled ‘speaking out’ and MS Word ‘fixed’ it for me.

Be ware MS Word auto correct…. it can be evil

Ok, explanation and clarification accepted.

 

[fix]

If you read the posts of non-Catholics in this thread I think you would see a constant theme of decrying ALL violence done to people on account of their religious faith (or lack thereof). We just want to see the same acknowledgement from your side. The fact that some of your co-religionists aren’t willing to say the same is more than troubling.

Why should one decry just punishment by the state? If there were abuses then that should be condemned just as abuses happen today. The problem is the wholesale condemnation of the process based on revisionist history.

 

[BelFarfalla]

…

I fail to understand how anti-catholics interpret 20-30 deaths of violent thugs as ‘millions’ and how these violent offenders suddenly get labelled as ‘bible believing Christians!’

It was not 20-30 deaths… the latest number, the onces from modern historians who are actually looking at the records of the courts at the time say that the actually number for all the inquistions over the years from the 1100’s to the 1700’s is 3000-5000. Still a far cry below millions.

The ‘millions’ come from hystarical writings such as Foxes Book of Martyrs.

 

[Shiann]

The names are mine, but I’ve seen documents where the Church distinguished between them.

I am sure that there were some heretics of type _1 & _2 who were executed based on the out come of their inquistion trial. Our court system make this mistake sometimes too… finding the innocent guilty.

But typically types 1 & 2 were treated with a lot of lenience by the inquistions.

Also, as you read the historical accounts, there are cases where the populace took it into their own hands to exact punishishment on the accused, while the Church was still determining guilt or innocence. I would guess a good proportion of the deaths recorded happened because the ignorant populace fell under mob mentality and decided not to wait for the Church.

Certainly if one reads the inquisitional examples I provided above, the Church was very thorough and very much wanted to avoid violence.

 

[Shiann]

Categories 3 and 4 were not the only heretics killed. Once again, the siege of Beziers: 20,000 people by Arnaud-Amaury’s own count, men, women, and children. What had the children done?

Citations please.

 

[Shiann]

HUH?

When you say heretic here are you speaking only of those who believe differently or of those who attack others or those who took it so far as to commit violence?

We should have catagories of heretics here.

Heretic_1 … just peacefully has believes differntly
Heretic_2 … like Heretic_1 + publically verbally attacks the establishment and/or doctrine.
Heretic_3 … like Heretic_2 + encourages and even participates in violence against those they disagree with. (basically is a violent criminal.
Heretic_4 … like Heretic_3 + plus commits treason against the state.

There, now we can all state exactly the level of heretic we are talking about. Maybe it would lead to more understanding.

I think that steaking out about Heretic_3 & _4 is totally justified and necessary.

Heretic_1 - Leave them alone, they are at worst misguided… at best have something new to teach us. It is fine to discuss their ideas and believes but not to attack them as a person.

Heretic_2 - stand up to their words but do not attack them personally.

The Cathar’s philosophies were extremely dangerous and denied human rights on the most basic levels:

But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable.

newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm

 

[rr1213]

Why should one decry just punishment by the state? If there were abuses then that should be condemned just as abuses happen today. The problem is the wholesale condemnation of the process based on revisionist history.

This is exactly what I mean. Instead of taking the invitation to condemn all violence directed towards people on account of their religious faith you have, instead, started the rationalization process anew.

If the State, or the Church, or a combination of the two, prosecute and punish people because of their religious faith then…no…it is not just.

Would you be happy if your country threw you into jail because you are Catholic and wouldn’t denounce your faith?

Somehow I don’t think it would matter beans to you if your beliefs, and failure to renounce them, were simply characterized as being “treason” instead of “heresy”. That happened to Catholics in Anglican England at times you know.

It wasn’t right for my religious ancestors to do it and it wasn’t right for yours to do it either.

 

[Mirdath]

Citations please.

Mark Gregory Pegg, The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245-1246. Sample with specific information. Notes that the figure and description of the indiscriminate killing appeared first in a letter addressed to Innocent III from Arnaud-Amaury himself.

Information page for the Languedoc region. Citation at bottom of page, for Patrologia Latinae Cursus Completus, series Latina, 221 vols., ed. J-P Migne (1844-64), Paris, Vol. 216:col 139.

Crusades-Encyclopedia notes that estimates of 10 to 20 thousand deaths were given after the siege, including by Catholic sources. Beziers had a population around nine thousand at the time, and only a few hundred were Cathars.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu, Catholic
*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?

Torture and murder are, by definition, indefensible.

And describing the actions of sinful human beings of the past, who had (what they percieved as) emergency situations to deal with, is not defending bad choices, but describing them to understand them.

The simplistic “PC” mind cannot distinguish the difference between understanding and defending, as usual.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, my _____ friend. (I’ll leave it to the crowd to fill in the blank.)

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Ahimsa]

The Cathar’s philosophies were extremely dangerous and denied human rights on the most basic levels:

But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable.newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm

One question: did the Cathars force people to become Cathar, or did people become Cathar pretty much of their own volition? Another question: how many Cathars were actually of the ‘elect’, and how many were lay-people engaging in normal, every-day activities (marriage, sex, work, etc.)?

Last question: what if Cathars were to re-appear in Europe? Would the state have the duty/right/obligation to execute them?

 

[Mirdath]

One question: did the Cathars force people to become Cathar, or did people become Cathar pretty much of their own volition? Another question: how many Cathars were actually of the ‘elect’, and how many were lay-people engaging in normal, every-day activities (marriage, sex, work, etc.)?

People are recorded as having converted to Catharism; Raymond VI’s ex-wife was in fact one of those number.

The Perfecti were very few.

 

[Shiann]

Mark Gregory Pegg, The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245-1246. Sample with specific information. Notes that the figure and description of the indiscriminate killing appeared first in a letter addressed to Innocent III from Arnaud-Amaury himself.

Information page for the Languedoc region. Citation at bottom of page, for Patrologia Latinae Cursus Completus, series Latina, 221 vols., ed. J-P Migne (1844-64), Paris, Vol. 216:col 139.

Crusades-Encyclopedia notes that estimates of 10 to 20 thousand deaths were given after the siege, including by Catholic sources. Beziers had a population around nine thousand at the time, and only a few hundred were Cathars.

Thank you

 

[Sixtus]

Belfarfella posted:

I was basically asking Sixtus if he meant that it was also wrong to speak ill of those who were committing violent crimes as part of their heresy. For instance the Cathars whose dogma supported assisted suicide. Their heresy basically included murder.

According to my understanding of history, they did a lot worse than that. You are being very kind.

I think that it was not only not wrong, but the actions by the Church were absolutely commendable and humane.

Some Cathars may have perished but think of all the innocents who surivived as a conesquence.

But if the civil authorities deemed that execution was the ‘just dessert’ then I think they should have been more compassionate and chosen a quicker more humane method. To subject someone to being burnt alive is to aweful to contemplate.

 

[Mirdath]

According to my understanding of history, they did a lot worse than that. You are being very kind.

They had some rather strange ideas about sex, but those would have taken care of themselves within a few generations. Murder was abhorred, and the ‘assisted suicide’ being spoken of is a rarity not condoned by Cathar teaching at best and blood libel at worst.

I think that it was not only not wrong, but the actions by the Church were absolutely commendable and humane.

Some Cathars may have perished but think of all the innocents who surivived as a conesquence.

Think of all the innocents who died along with the also-mostly-harmless Cathars, hm?

 

[Shiann]

Mark Gregory Pegg, The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245-1246. Sample with specific information. Notes that the figure and description of the indiscriminate killing appeared first in a letter addressed to Innocent III from Arnaud-Amaury himself.

Information page for the Languedoc region. Citation at bottom of page, for Patrologia Latinae Cursus Completus, series Latina, 221 vols., ed. J-P Migne (1844-64), Paris, Vol. 216:col 139.

Crusades-Encyclopedia notes that estimates of 10 to 20 thousand deaths were given after the siege, including by Catholic sources. Beziers had a population around nine thousand at the time, and only a few hundred were Cathars.

So the death total was not 20,000 but half that. And most of the deaths were by enraged servant boys who mob attacked the city after one of the crusade soldiers was killed and dismembered by people from another city.

 

[BelFarfalla]

One question: did the Cathars force people to become Cathar, or did people become Cathar pretty much of their own volition? Another question: how many Cathars were actually of the ‘elect’, and how many were lay-people engaging in normal, every-day activities (marriage, sex, work, etc.)?

Last question: what if Cathars were to re-appear in Europe? Would the state have the duty/right/obligation to execute them?

As an area become predominately Cathar, they put pressure on people who join and were entagonistic and even violent to those who would not. Of course not ever Cathar engaged in the violence to force others into their group. I’m speaking in general all terms.

Actually Cathars who truly believed their doctrine did not engage in things like marriage and sex… they were considered sinful as they were of the physical world and produced babies where are human souls trapped in animal bodies… a fate worse then death.

Today anyone who followed some (not all) of the Cathar beliefs would indeed be punished. Any Cathar today who participated in the ritual assisted suicides and the killing of babies to release their souls would indeed be seriously punished today… some executed depending of the jurisdiction. Any Cathar today who used violence in their cause would be punished. The state would definitely have the duty/right/obligation to deal with this.

There actually are people today who call themselves Cathars.