Was the burning of heretics justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
6glargento said:
notice though, **today ** the church holds that the execution of criminals is justifyable only in the case to protect society. Back durring the 14th-16th centuries there might not have been as many alternatives as there are today and execution may have been the only mechanism available to protect society from heretics. 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.
Click to expand...
They had jails back then too.
 
rr1213 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus did say “it would be better for him to have a millstone around his neck”, so why didn’t they do that, instead of burning? And He didn’t say “tie a millstone and throw him” or “tie him to the stake and burn him”. I also don’t see the point of recanting. They executed the offender whether he recanted or not!
rr1213 said:
It is not our role, as individuals, society, the church or the government to dole out temporal punishment for heretical beliefs or acts.
Click to expand...
I think that is the whole point of the weeds and the tares parable. From that, we can clearly see that it is the angels that will sort the stuff out, and not the ones growing. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’" Matt 13:30
rr1213 said:
Second, to do so confuses the distinct roles of Church and State.
Click to expand...
We see it that way now, but at the time, there was no such distinction. That is why heresy was also considered treason. Notice that the Holy FAther won’t let any of the clergy into gov’t now!
rr1213 said:
Third, burning at the stake is a reprehensible means of execution.
Click to expand...
But if a person can be purified here, maybe they will make it to heaven! Look on the bright side!

15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 1 Cor 3:14-15

“3 as if present, I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1 Cor 5:3-5

Perhaps the OP is right, and the eternal state of the soul is more important than that of the body?
rr1213 said:
Today, the Catholic Church essentially holds that execution of criminals is justifiable in only the very limited cases where it is absolutely necessary to protect society. In other words, in the Church’s eyes, capital punishment today is ALMOST NEVER justified. That being the case, how can YOU justify literally torturing people to death for a variance in their religious faith.
Click to expand...
And JPII said he thought there were other as effective means for dealing with offenders so that it was not needed.
 
leo123 said:
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?

Comments anyone?
Click to expand...
You also have to consider that in those days, there was no way to secure someone, as there is today. If they have built a little jail and left him in it when they moved the camp, he would have died anyhow.
 
6glargento said:
but they wern’t as big or secure so drastic measures needed to be taken to insure both the physical and spiritual well beings of citizens
Click to expand...
So, has the Catholic moral position on supporting capital punishment for heretics, changed over the centuries?
 
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.
 
6glargento said:
but they wern’t as big or secure so drastic measures needed to be taken to insure both the physical and spiritual well beings of citizens
Click to expand...
I don’t buy that at all. For Gosh sakes, do you think that they did not know how to build a jail back then? Do you think that those big, big castles with those dark stone dungeons were somehow insecure? What has changed between the Middle Ages and Today is not society’s ability to imprison offenders but, instead, a realization among some that capital punishment should have a lesser, rather than broader, application.
 
Mirdath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice. Very nice.
 
KarenNC said:
As an interesting aside while we are on the subject of the Inquisition, here’s a fascinating article on relatively recent scholarship (from 1998) on the subject of the witch hunts (often confused with the Inquisition), by a Neopagan with an MA in medieval history and a minor in the Great Hunt.

chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM5a1.html

"For years, the responsibility for the Great Hunt has been dumped on the Catholic Church’s door-step. 19th century historians ascribed the persecution to religious hysteria. And when Margaret Murray proposed that witches were members of a Pagan sect, popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but rather a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity’s rival religion.

Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the Church was at the height of its power (11th-14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic Church had lost its position as Europe’s indisputable moral authority. Moreover most of the killing was done by secular courts. Church courts tried many witches but they usually imposed non-lethal penalties. A witch might be excommunicated, given penance, or imprisoned, but she was rarely killed. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented."

The entire article is well worth reading (and bookmarking to share with any you encounter who still believe that the Catholic Church burned witches during the Inquisition–and that those “witches” were the equivalents of modern Neopagans, Wiccans in particular).
Click to expand...
Well, thank you KarenNC 👍 - A defense of Catholicism (or at least an attempt to provide an objective view) fom the only Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist on the forum. :eek:

😃
 
ricmat said:
Well, thank you KarenNC 👍 - A defense of Catholicism (or at least an attempt to provide an objective view) fom the only Hellenic Neopagan Unitarian Universalist on the forum. :eek:

😃
Click to expand...
Not so much a defense of Catholicism as a desire for historical accuracy when possible. I’ve got plenty of reasons to disagree with the Catholic Church --to add imaginary ones is simply intellecually dishonest and, when it comes down to it, would only serve to make me look ridiculous.🙂

In my mind, there’s not much that undermines a person’s position as quickly as to be flagrantly (and often obstinately, even in the face of evidence to the contrary) wrong about the objective historical facts of a matter, especially when the other person knows it.
 
6glargento said:
but they wern’t as big or secure so drastic measures needed to be taken to insure both the physical and spiritual well beings of citizens
Click to expand...
In that case, what would be the justification for burning them alive vs. a presumably more humane form of execution (if done correctly) such as beheading if the primary goal was simply to remove them from society, particularly given the Christian teachings on forgiveness, charity, loving one’s enemies, etc?
 
Killing heretics is always wrong. Killing people for having different religious beliefs than you, or for changing from one religion to another, is an evil act.

I read some of the arguments on here defending burning heretics, and the same arguments are used, by Muslims, to defend killing apostates from Islam today.

Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church. Do you believe that what Christ said is true or not? If you believe Christ’s promise, then there is no need to kill heretics, regardless what happens, how many there are, etc. etc.

Killing anyone for a religious belief is wrong.
 
Ella said:
Killing heretics is always wrong. Killing people for having different religious beliefs than you, or for changing from one religion to another, is an evil act.

I read some of the arguments on here defending burning heretics, and the same arguments are used, by Muslims, to defend killing apostates from Islam today.

Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church. Do you believe that what Christ said is true or not? If you believe Christ’s promise, then there is no need to kill heretics, regardless what happens, how many there are, etc. etc.

Killing anyone for a religious belief is wrong.
Click to expand...
In the OT, it says to kill heretics, apostates and witches.
 
BelFarfalla said:
In the OT, it says to kill heretics, apostates and witches.
Click to expand...
In the NT, it says

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Luk 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.
 
glargento
Was the burning of heretics justified?
Many people critisize the catholic church because it would hand heretics over to the authorites for their false teachings. from there the authorities would often execute heretics by burning at the stake.
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...
Actually there has been some pretty perverse teachings which Mother Church has opposed, including a belief that because we are sinful therefore we do not deserve to live, therefore suicide in the perverse belief it was pleasing to God.

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 :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top