Was the burning of heretics justified?

[Vaclav]

All you’re saying here is ‘the ends justify the means’, which is a position thoroughly abhorred by the Church.

That is not what I said. That is what you said and then placed your words upon mine. Quite a dodgy way of making an argument really.

I don’t see a Nestorian- or Arian-dominated world being all that different, really.

So the Trinity is really not a big deal for you? Interesting.

A world in which the Cathars replaced the Catholics, however, would be pretty neat, and possibly an improvement. There’s a lot of blood libel against them being posted in this thread; they weren’t perfect, but they were not murderers and brephophagists either. They simply didn’t want to play by the rules of feudal society, and for that and that alone they were exterminated.

They were not Christians either. Had they come to dominate society, what is the likelihood that many of us would be Christian? What would the Western world look like today?

Yet the Church now sees the violation of those freedoms and rights as a moral wrong. If you deny that such were always wrong, you imply that morality is mutable and relative.

We believe in the Magisterium, which means that the teachings of God did not just come to a full stop sometime in the first century.

Again, you are placing statements upon my words that I did not make.

I can see why dualism is appealing to some. It presents a world of simple explanations and easy answers.

 

[Mirdath]

That is not what I said. That is what you said and then placed your words upon mine. Quite a dodgy way of making an argument really.

Really now? Let’s look at it again: 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

1. Ends are, to you, desirable: preserve European society and Christianity.
2. You have issues with the means used.
3. But okay, it worked. Meets the standards. Means are excusable, you got what you wanted.

I’m going to have to stand by my former statement.

So the Trinity is really not a big deal for you? Interesting.

I am agnostic, so I guess not.

They were not Christians either. Had they come to dominate society, what is the likelihood that many of us would be Christian? What would the Western world look like today?

They were as Christian as any other heretics, in the literal sense of following the Christ. Some of them did deny his divinity, though.

As to the what-ifs – I don’t know! It’d be interesting, though, and I can’t say that I see it turning out worse.

We believe in the Magisterium, which means that the teachings of God did not just come to a full stop sometime in the first century.

Can the Magisterium contradict itself? Can it declare X action now moral when in the past it was considered immoral, or vice versa? Not exactly something to do if credibility is any concern, considering it also preaches that morality stems from the immutable natural law of God. Altering moral teaching implies either grievous prior error or a change in what is held to be unchangeable.

 

[Keikiolu]

For those who call it ‘justifiable then’, consider this:

Would you defend the burning of heretics, apostates, and schismatics today? If not, you hold the Middle Ages to a subjective morality – and deny the absolute, universal morality espoused by the Catholic Church in favor of (gasp) moral relativism.

Those INDIVIDUALS who burned people erred in their means, but not in their conclusions.

Individuals, and groups of individuals, make mistakes, but the Church doesn’t.

Heretics, apostates, and schismatics should be treated in the best way possible to get them to see their error, and the people of the Church should be “innoculated” in the best way possible to understand why the “bad guys” have erred so that they wouldn’t be influenced by that error.

That some individuals chose to use rather anti-Christian ways to accomplish what they thought (hopefully) was the best way to convince the “bad guys” to recant, and the best way to “disincentivize” the people of the Church to not follow their example, speaks only of individual human error, and not to Church error.

Nice try, though, to equate individual error with Church error, and call it “relativism” if we agree to your incorrect equation.

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

 

[Mirdath]

Those INDIVIDUALS who burned people erred in their means, but not in their conclusions.

These individuals were acting in accordance with the will of the group. The Inquisition did not make up its power, it was instituted and sanctioned by Rome itself; the Albigensian Crusade was called for and supported by Innocent III. No go.

 

[LilyM]

These individuals were acting in accordance with the will of the group. The Inquisition did not make up its power, it was instituted and sanctioned by Rome itself; the Albigensian Crusade was called for and supported by Innocent III. No go.

While the morality or otherwise of burning heretics per se remains unchanged, we’re talking totally different political scenery for one thing. Different understanding of what governments are supposed to do.

In medieval times rulers were considered to be appointed by God and responsible for the RELIGIOUS as well as social and material welfare of their countries. Much like the old pagan rulers, part of whose job was to conduct religious rites ensuring the placation of the deities and survival of the nation. This is one reason why heresy was legally treated along the same lines as treason - religious heterodoxy was considered a danger to the welfare of the state. And why it was so relatively easy for Henry VIII to see himself as religious as well as political ruler of England.

Today - totally different view. Politicians rule from the consent of the governed rather than divine right. They’ve been forced, more or less, to accept religious plurality as well, even in places like England, France, Spain and Italy which have been fairly uniform religiously for centuries. New realities enshrined in little things like constitutions and other laws guaranteeing freedom of religion and separation of church and state, which laws politicians and monarchs freely swear to uphold. Which oaths they can’t ethically or morally break.

It’s not relativist to say that differences in political and social realities change things practically, if not morally.

 

[BelFarfalla]

bede.org.uk/inquisition.htm

---

Why were heretics burnt?

Burning was the punishment under ancient Roman punishment for treason after crucifixion had been abolished in the fourth century. It was consequently used by the Holy Roman Empire to deal with traitors and heresy was widely seen as a particularly serious kind of treason. Although the church never specifically sanctioned burning once a heretic had been ‘relaxed’ to the secular arm, it was always perfectly well aware that this would be the result. If the heretic confessed after sentence had already been passed then it was usually commuted to strangulation by the executioner before the pyre was lit. In any case the victim often suffocated before the flames reached them although a skilled executioner could prevent this if instructed. In some jurisdictions burning was not the punishment used, for example the Venetians drowned traitors and heretics).
(Sources: pages 67 and 117 Peters; page 190 Heresy and Authority)

 

[BelFarfalla]

Apparently the Spanish Monarchy asked the Pope for permission to start an inquision like the ones that had been held in France and Northern Italy. The Pope turned them down. But the Spanish Monarchy went ahead and sanctioned an inquisition with no papal authority. There were several communications from Popes ordering an end to the inquistion in Spain, all were ignored.

http://www.bede.org.uk/inquisition.htm

How many were executed by the Spanish Inquisition?

By most standards, the records of the Spanish Inquisition are spectacularly good and a treasure trove for social historians as they record many details about ordinary people. Nothing like all the files have been analysed but from the third looked at so far, it seems the Inquisition, operating through out the Spanish Empire, executed about 700 people between 1540 and 1700 out of a total of 49,000 cases. It is also reckoned that they probably killed about two thousand during the first fifty years of operation when persecution against Jews and Moslems was at its most severe. This would give a total figure of around 5,000 for the entire three hundred year period of its operation.

 

[Mirdath]

Today - totally different view. Politicians rule from the consent of the governed rather than divine right. They’ve been forced, more or less, to accept religious plurality as well, even in places like England, France, Spain and Italy which have been fairly uniform religiously for centuries. New realities enshrined in little things like constitutions and other laws guaranteeing freedom of religion and separation of church and state, which laws politicians and monarchs freely swear to uphold. Which oaths they can’t ethically or morally break.

All well and good, but it doesn’t answer the central question: was tossing heretics on bonfires a moral good or a moral evil?

It’s not relativist to say that differences in political and social realities change things practically, if not morally.

That’s pretty much the textbook definition of relativism. Change in situation implies change of moral requirements? Yeah, that’s it all right.

 

[Brendan]

Cowards. I’ll take it on…

“Was the burning of heretics justified?”

Of course not, it was a barbaric undertaking. First of all, God is ready, willing and able to deal with heretics when HIS time comes. It is not our role, as individuals, society, the church or the government to dole out temporal punishment for heretical beliefs or acts.

Not true. 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.

 

[BelFarfalla]

All well and good, but it doesn’t answer the central question: was tossing heretics on bonfires a moral good or a moral evil?

Is it moral for leaders to do nothing to stop the decay of their social order until it disrupts into a war will kills a good number of the people?

 

[Mirdath]

Is it moral for leaders to do nothing to stop the decay of their social order until it disrupts into a war will kills a good number of the people?

Are differences in religious belief a decay of social order? Are you advocating war against Mormon door-to-door missionaries?

 

[rr1213]

Not true. 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.

Very well sir. That being the case, and since with all respect you are a heretic in my estimation, please proceed up the platform to the bonfire and we’ll proceed with the burning. Would you like some morphine prior to initiation of the blaze…oh wait. That wouldn’t be proper. Morphine would lessen the punishment for your heresy…

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Ok, here’s where we find the decline… and we were doing so well!

---

Might I interject here and remind everyone of the following:

Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*

• It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
• It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
• It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=145207

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Those INDIVIDUALS who burned people erred in their means, but not in their conclusions.

These individuals were acting in accordance with the will of the group. The Inquisition did not make up its power, it was instituted and sanctioned by Rome itself; the Albigensian Crusade was called for and supported by Innocent III. No go.

And therefore Innocent III, though I don’t know this for a fact and am relying on Mird here as to the facts, was in error to have punished them in that way, as were those who followed those orders.

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.

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelFarfalla forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Is it moral for leaders to do nothing to stop the decay of their social order until it disrupts into a war will kills a good number of the people?

Are differences in religious belief a decay of social order? Are you advocating war against Mormon door-to-door missionaries?

What you would have us believe is that a “true religion” would have to have existed since time-immemorial (sic?) and would have to have a perfect code of both morals and behaviors, which no one of that religion would ever violate, because if they did then that act would invalidate that religion thenceforth.

The lovely thing about Christianity is that it knows that we are all sinners,… even (gasp!) people who “run” the Church, and that that fact doesn’t invalidate the truths of the Church.

Do people of the Church do evil occassionally? Yes.
Does that invalidate the stated morals and doctrine of the Church? No.

Does humanity learn over time better ways of doing things? Yes.
Are there times (past and future) when the best way to do things is not chosen, perhaps because to chose the best would be “too difficult” or “unheard of”? Yes.

That’s why we have “forgiveness of sins”, remember?

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

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilyM forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Today - totally different view. Politicians rule from the consent of the governed rather than divine right. They’ve been forced, more or less, to accept religious plurality as well, even in places like England, France, Spain and Italy which have been fairly uniform religiously for centuries. New realities enshrined in little things like constitutions and other laws guaranteeing freedom of religion and separation of church and state, which laws politicians and monarchs freely swear to uphold. Which oaths they can’t ethically or morally break.

All well and good, but it doesn’t answer the central question: was tossing heretics on bonfires a moral good or a moral evil?

Tossing ANYONE on a bonfire is a morally evil behavior. Period.
That behavior was the behavior of INDIVIDUALS, and not of the Church, even if every single individual member of the Church at the time agreed to do that behavior.

If you can’t draw the distinction between The Church and it’s members (even if it’s ALL it’s members), then you rightly can’t understand what I’m saying.

That tells me only that you need to be educated in the distinction between the Church and it’s members.

Quote:
It’s not relativist to say that differences in political and social realities change things practically, if not morally.

That’s pretty much the textbook definition of relativism. Change in situation implies change of moral requirements? Yeah, that’s it all right.

If it’s very easy to do something now, and it was much more difficult to do that same thing in the past, then it’s more likely (probable) that we frail humans will do what is easiest to do in whatever time we exist, which in this case means doing the easy thing now and not doing the difficult thing in the past.

(( The “thing” that is being done is to NOT BURN PEOPLE ALIVE, which is easier to do nowadays, unless you live in various “primitive” places. ))

Is it ever morally acceptable to do some things? No.
Does social acceptability sometimes trump moral unacceptability? Yes.
Do people who allow the social to trump the moral commit evil? Yes.

Does the Church ever allow the social to trump the moral? No.

Blame individuals for their choices, as the Church has no will but the will of God, and His will is never to do evil.

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

 

[Mirdath]

And therefore Innocent III, though I don’t know this for a fact and am relying on Mird here as to the facts, was in error to have punished them in that way, as were those who followed those orders.

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.

Take away the individuals, and you have no Church at all. If Innocent III was in error to call for the Albigensian Crusade, and the various members of the hierarchy were in error to institute autos-da-fe and torture during the Inquisition, well, they were the Church. The Catholic Church is not some nebulous structure hanging over the Vatican hill; it is the people who profess belief in the Christ’s divinity. If the people constituting and leading the Church are wrong, then the Church itself has erred. It is a human institution. Notwithstanding the fact that it believes itself divinely founded, it is administered and made up of mere people capable of error and wrong.

What you would have us believe is that a “true religion” would have to have existed since time-immemorial (sic?) and would have to have a perfect code of both morals and behaviors, which no one of that religion would ever violate, because if they did then that act would invalidate that religion thenceforth.

Not at all. Obviously if such a thing exists, it’s the one, but I don’t know of anything like that. I do not believe humans are perfect – a standard I’m sure we share. However, for me that extends to religion: it is a human thing, no matter its inspiration. But those who hold to various faiths are generally less than willing to admit there might have been mistakes made somewhere along the line.

Does humanity learn over time better ways of doing things? Yes.
Are there times (past and future) when the best way to do things is not chosen, perhaps because to chose the best would be “too difficult” or “unheard of”? Yes.

Then let not religion seek to proclaim itself inerrant.

That’s why we have “forgiveness of sins”, remember?

Which is a good thing, because people need it!

 

[rr1213]

Tossing ANYONE on a bonfire is a morally evil behavior. Period.
That behavior was the behavior of INDIVIDUALS, and not of the Church, even if every single individual member of the Church at the time agreed to do that behavior.

If you can’t draw the distinction between The Church and it’s members (even if it’s ALL it’s members), then you rightly can’t understand what I’m saying.

That tells me only that you need to be educated in the distinction between the Church and it’s members.

A false distinction. The Church acts through its leaders and members.

If every member of the Church, including the Pope and every Bishop, Priest and Deacon, said that under God’s law burning heretics at the stake was both righteous and mandatory, you’d still deny that the Church has acted and has acted wrongfully.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Tossing ANYONE on a bonfire is a morally evil behavior. Period.
That behavior was the behavior of INDIVIDUALS, and not of the Church, even if every single individual member of the Church at the time agreed to do that behavior.

If you can’t draw the distinction between The Church and it’s members (even if it’s ALL it’s members), then you rightly can’t understand what I’m saying.

That tells me only that you need to be educated in the distinction between the Church and it’s members.

A false distinction. The Church acts through its leaders and members.

That’s easy for you to say, but that’s not the way it is.

You therefore truly DON’T know the principle of the “Body of Christ”, which is the Church.

The Church is more than an “organization of humans”. It is firstly Christ, who needs no “members”. The fact that there are people who are considered “members” of the body of Christ is entirely unnecessary and entirely gratuitously ALLOWED by God.

The truths of God are not dependent on the actions of men.

If every member of the Church, including the Pope and every Bishop, Priest and Deacon, said that under God’s law burning heretics at the stake was both righteous and mandatory, you’d still deny that the Church has acted and has acted wrongfully.

If every single member, as you said, sinned,… then they as people would have sinned.

The Church is simply incapable of sinning. Period, because the Church can not err from the will of God, which can not sin.

Until you admit that you don’t understand the nature of the Church, the nature of God, and the nature of man, and then seek to understand them, you can’t possibly see ANY sense in what I just said…!

Ya’ interested in finding out, or you just want to be noisily pissy with your perception of “the Church as bad guy”…?

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

 

[rr1213]

I understand the principle just fine. I don’t find it persuasive at all, especially in this context. I see that the Church is a definitional box to you…since the Church cannot err any error must not be of the Church…or it must not be error. It’s like the Church is a theoretical construct existing high above reality and unaffected by it.