Was the burning of heretics justified?

[Zooey]

If the Church condones burning of heretics, then the responsibility of that decision lies with the Church. Likewise, if the Church hides pedophile priests, then the fault of that decision lies with the Church.

Just pointing out that you are trying to have things both ways here…
On the one hand, you are condemning the burning of heretics & blaming it on the Catholic Church.
Then you turn around and accuse the Catholic Church of “hid[ing] pedophile priests”, and blaming the Church for that. Would you have preferred that she burn them alive?? Because that’s where your lack of logic leads…

You can say that it was terrible to burn heretics in the Middle Ages, or you can say that it was terrible not to burn “pedophile priests”.
What you can’t do, is attack Catholics for reacting violently in one case, and not doing so in the other.
(At least, you can argue that. But it’s :nope: not logical, and therefore you:nope: can’t sustain it.)

 

[BelFarfalla]

I’m afraid I’m not following you here, Keikiolu. I asked you to give us some examples of what the Church HAS done so that we might compare it to the things which its member have done and, hopefully, see the difference you keep insisting on.
You’ve told us repeatedly that the Church didn’t do the things we’re objecting to. Instead, you keep saying, it was only the Church’s members who did them.
So, can you list off a few things that the Church HAS done. If the Church didn’t do the things under discussion, can you tell us some things the Church DID do?
Or is it correct to say that the Church has never done a bloomin’ thing in 2,000 years?
I’m just trying to get a grip on your definitions. So I’ll repeat the question: please give us some examples of things the Church HAS done so that we may compare them to the things that her members have done and, hopefully, understand why the first fall in the first category and the others fall in the other category.

Here’s another example. There were several Catholic Inquisitions. There were also inquisitions that are erroneously thought of as Catholic Inquisitions but are not.
**“The Spanish Inquisition, and the Inquisition in Venice **and other countries, must not be identified with the ecclesiastical Inquisition. They were mixed tribunals, with the civil element predominating, and their excesses cannot be charged to the Church. The Spanish Inquisition, established in 1481 by Ferdinand and Isabella, was intended primarily for the Mohammedan converts to Catholicism, in the old Arab kingdoms, who were suspected of wishing to return to their old religion, and for disguised Jews, many of whom had succeeded in becoming priests and even bishops. The tribunal, once established, also directed its activity against murder, immorality, smuggling, usury, and other offenses. The king appointed the Grand Inquisitor and the other officials, and also signed the decrees; and the penalties were inflicted in his name. [At first] Pope Sixtus IV approved the Spanish Inquisition, because he was under the impression that an ecclesiastical Inquisition was to be established; when the true state of the case was brought to his knowledge, it was too late; all that he and his successors could do was to protest against its excesses. The Spanish kings made extensive use of the powers of the Inquisition against obnoxious prelates and nobles who were not subject to the jurisdiction of other tribunals. On one occasion the Pope had great difficulty in rescuing Cardinal Caranza, Primate of Toledo, from the hands of the Inquisitors. “
http://biblia.com/islam/inquisit…htm

Those who carried out the Spanish inquisition broke the laws and doctrine of the church. They disobeyed the Pope. They used it for personal political gain and to get rid of their enemies. The Catholic Church holds no responsibilities for the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition since it actively objected to what was going on.

 

[BelFarfalla]

It’s horrible the way that people behave isn’t it?
But the thing that gets me, and this is an honest question here, how can the catholic church claim unity but then disown some of it’s leaders just because of the heinous practices that they held? IF the catholic church is as united and ONE as it claims to be then they would have to take ownership of its leaders and own up to these issues as the Pope did when he apologized.
See, that is why protestants today would not need to apologize for the evil that those men did. For one I don’t believe anyone who loves God and really needs to do the Will of God would do those things so those ‘protestants’ really aren’t good examples of christians are they? If they are christian I leave that to God to know but I don’t believe that the Body of Christ would kill eachother as we humans have. I have no desire to kill catholics because of what they believe nor did Christ believe in killing anyone who didn’t believe. He simply said to tell them the Truth and if they ignore it then leave that town and don’t look back. He didn’t say to wage war or to pray that God would strike the city down. But to plant the seed and leave it up to God.

Let me get this steight… In your book only Catholics are responsible for the actions of their clergy. But protestants get to claim immunity?

Protestants are hardly immune from the bad history of many of their spiritual ancestors. the Anglican Churched burned about 75,000 Catholics. The Anglican Church still exists today. These executions were doctrine and law of the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church does indeed owe Catholics an apology for what their ancestors did.

“The Protestant Reformation did nothing to change the traditional views in regard to the persecution of heretics. In Protestant as well as in Catholic countries heretics were imprisoned, tortured, and put to death by fire or otherwise. It was not until 1677 that the death penalty against heretics was removed from the statute books in England. Philip of Spain considered heresy to be no less dangerous to the state than Elizabeth of England considered Catholicism to be; and Philip’s prisons, were no more unsavory and noisome than the English prisons of the time. Luther, Melanchton, Calvin, and Theodore of Beza explicitly approved of capital punishment for obstinate heretics. Calvin even wrote a special work in defense of the principle that “Heretics are to be coerced by the sword,” after he had burned Michael Servetus at the stake. “

Luther wrote quite clearly about the need to burn witches and jews… both of whom he found hateful and not worth living. His followers did indeed follow his instructions and burn tens of thousands of witches.

I have thought long and hard on this issue… what it boils down to for me is that I have more respect for the Catholic church because its people have not abandoned ship and have stayed to fix things with their clergy has gone wrong. That is taking responsibility.

On the other hand protestants have a remarkable way of attempting to defuse responsibly. It’s part of the trick of having little structure and thousands of denominations. No one feels responsible to address and fix the problems. Then they go around acting as though none of their own has ever done anything wrong.
I am very proud of Pope John Paul II. He is the only religions leader the world has ever had who has apologized to the world for the wrongs of our ancestors.

 

[Zooey]

So you believe that in Medieval Europe they considered burning people alive was a reasonable and humane way to execute? I would buy beheading (after all the guillotine was originally a humane reform because it killed more swiftly and surely than beheading with an axe), but not burning alive.

You might want to do a little research here…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.

Sorry, there is no context, now or in human history, in which one can sanely say that burning someone alive is anything less than deliberately cruel. It has nothing to do with “today’s prison and execution systems.”

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 (B) they would have been following England’s charming customs of drawing & quartering and/or being “hanged from one city to the next”. (i.e., cutting the person down still alive, and seeing how many times you could hang them before they died of, most likely, heart attack or stroke).
It was the British, who boast of their compassion to their “heretics”, who truly push the envelope on cruelty to the nth degree, by deliberately pursuing means of death that were a s slow & excruciatingly painful as possible…

 

[mozart-250]

Just pointing out that you are trying to have things both ways here…
On the one hand, you are condemning the burning of heretics & blaming it on the Catholic Church.
Then you turn around and accuse the Catholic Church of “hid[ing] pedophile priests”, and blaming the Church for that. Would you have preferred that she burn them alive?? Because that’s where your lack of logic leads…

Just a comment that in both cases there are additional options other than doing nothing and burning alive. It would seem to me that maybe excommunication would be appropriate in both cases.

I guess I agree with SinginBeauty and am thankful that your own popes do not seem to think the same way as some folks here.

I am in agreement that it is a double standard to the nth degree for Protestants to rub the noses of the Catholics with this considering that leaders of their own reformation did the same thing (unless you want to argue fallaciously that Zwingli was being more humane by drowning anabaptists instead of burning them).

When you are wrong you are wrong. Period. I would expect that young children would nitpick over the faults of their siblings (but Johnny took 3 cookies from the cookie jar…I took only 2) instead of owning up to their own behavior. I would not expect this behaviour from responsible adults.

 

[a_priori]

John Calvin used to kill single pregnant women and their babies. (William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, pp190-193)

Christian history is littered with examples of horrendous acts. What’s the point? Judging God by the actions of misguided people is ignorant.

Killing or torturing people in the name of God is evil in the extreme. There are people on earth today who think that killing someone of a faith different from theirs is service to God.

It’s very annoying…

 

[Zooey]

Just a comment that in both cases there are additional options other than doing nothing and burning alive. It would seem to me that maybe excommunication would be appropriate in both cases.

I guess I agree with SinginBeauty and am thankful that your own popes do not seem to think the same way as some folks here.

I am in agreement that it is a double standard to the nth degree for Protestants to rub the noses of the Catholics with this considering that leaders of their own reformation did the same thing (unless you want to argue fallaciously that Zwingli was being more humane by drowning anabaptists instead of burning them).

When you are wrong you are wrong. Period. I would expect that young children would nitpick over the faults of their siblings (but Johnny took 3 cookies from the cookie jar…I took only 2) instead of owning up to their own behavior. I would not expect this behaviour from responsible adults.

As much as I admire the current pontiff and his immediate predecessor, I have to point out that I speak as a Methodist.

 

[rr1213]

Considering Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church his opinion does hold some actual weight.

Aquinas’ position holds weight when he is right, not when he is wrong. When he advocated killing heretics, he was wrong. Plainly wrong. In error. Not speaking in love or truth.

Let me make a candid statement here and I hope people take it to heart. I am ***astonished ***that we are even having this discussion in the 21st Century…that people could honestly contend that ***killing those who disagree with their religious faith ***is somehow justified.

Christ not only did not “terminate” those who were heretics, he died for them on the cross. He also told the parable of the wheat and tares…there are tares among us–we differ as to who those may be and only God truly knows. More importantly, God himself has told us that HE will deal with those tares when the time comes. Not us.

Remember that everyone is a heretic in the eyes of someone. Catholics say that Protestants are in heresy. Protestants return the favor. Muslims think that both of us are infidels. So on and so on. If we continue the mistakes of history by killing people who disagree with us on religious grounds its going to be a very unpleasant world. Its going to be a very unpleasant world also if we try to justify those who would kill heretics because of their beliefs.

So, yes, burning heretics is wrong and always has been. It is, and was, wrong whether done by the Church, by the government, by Protestants, by Henry VIII, by the KKK, etc., etc., etc. By whoever.

 

[Subrosa]

5.3. The Use of Force in the Service of Truth
To the counter-witness of the division between Christians should be added that of the various occasions in the past millennium when doubtful means were employed in the pursuit of good ends, such as the proclamation of the Gospel or the defense of the unity of the faith. “Another sad chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of force in the service of truth.”(78) This refers to forms of evangelization that employed improper means to announce the revealed truth or did not include an evangelical discernment suited to the cultural values of peoples or did not respect the consciences of the persons to whom the faith was presented, as well as all forms of force used in the repression and correction of errors.
Analogous attention should be paid to all the failures, for which the sons and daughters of the Church may have been responsible, to denounce injustice and violence in the great variety of historical situations: “Then there is the lack of discernment by many Christians in situations where basic human rights were violated. The request for forgiveness applies to whatever should have been done or was passed over in silence because of weakness or bad judgement, to what was done or said hesitantly or inappropriately.”(79)
As always, establishing the historical truth by means of historical-critical research is decisive. Once the facts have been established, it will be necessary to evaluate their spiritual and moral value, as well as their objective significance. Only thus will it be possible to avoid every form of mythical memory and reach a fair critical memory capable - in the light of faith - of producing fruits of conversion and renewal. “From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: ‘The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.’”(80)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#The%20Use%20of%20Force%20in%20the%20Service%20of%20Truth

 

[Ella]

Aquinas’ position holds weight when he is right, not when he is wrong. When he advocated killing heretics, he was wrong. Plainly wrong. In error. Not speaking in love or truth.

Let me make a candid statement here and I hope people take it to heart. I am ***astonished ***that we are even having this discussion in the 21st Century…that people could honestly contend that ***killing those who disagree with their religious faith ***is somehow justified.

Christ not only did not “terminate” those who were heretics, he died for them on the cross. He also told the parable of the wheat and tares…there are tares among us–we differ as to who those may be and only God truly knows. More importantly, God himself has told us that HE will deal with those tares when the time comes. Not us.

Remember that everyone is a heretic in the eyes of someone. Catholics say that Protestants are in heresy. Protestants return the favor. Muslims think that both of us are infidels. So on and so on. If we continue the mistakes of history by killing people who disagree with us on religious grounds its going to be a very unpleasant world. Its going to be a very unpleasant world also if we try to justify those who would kill heretics because of their beliefs.

So, yes, burning heretics is wrong and always has been. It is, and was, wrong whether done by the Church, by the government, by Protestants, by Henry VIII, by the KKK, etc., etc., etc. By whoever.

I am in total agreement! Killing heretics is wrong, it was wrong, and it will always be wrong. And I too am amazed that people on here are trying to defend it.

ALSO remember that the same arguments some are using on here to defend killing heretics in the past are used by Muslims to condone killing apostates - today - including the argument that a heretic is damaging society by their errors and so should be killed to contain the heresy.

 

[LJN21]

I am in total agreement! Killing heretics is wrong, it was wrong, and it will always be wrong. And I too am amazed that people on here are trying to defend it.

ALSO remember that the same arguments some are using on here to defend killing heretics in the past are used by Muslims to condone killing apostates - today - including the argument that a heretic is damaging society by their errors and so should be killed to contain the heresy.

There is a difference. They weren’t killing apostates. They weren’t killing people of different faiths. They were killing people that were living as Catholics that were subverting the faith. Radical Muslims want to kill anyone that is not Muslim. Those are two completely different things.

 

[LJN21]

Let me make a candid statement here and I hope people take it to heart. I am ***astonished ***that we are even having this discussion in the 21st Century…that people could honestly contend that ***killing those who disagree with their religious faith ***is somehow justified.

Because that’s not what they where doing. They were killing people that were supposedly Catholic that were spreading Heresy.

 

[rr1213]

There is a difference. They weren’t killing apostates. They weren’t killing people of different faiths. They were killing people that were living as Catholics that were subverting the faith. Radical Muslims want to kill anyone that is not Muslim. Those are two completely different things.

It’s not different at all. In each of your examples, people were persecuted and executed brutally for disagreeing with the religious authorities. People should be free to exercise their faith without fear that the government or religious authorities will punish them if their beliefs do not conform to whatever is considered the dogmatic norm.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *What has the Church done?**Read the catechism, and find those parts you disagree with. Then read a bit further, so as to clarify why those “disagreeable” parts are believed by the Church.*In other words, the Church does only good things, while if any evil is done it is, of necessity, done only by people, as only PEOPLE CAN SIN.I’m afraid I’m not following you here, Keikiolu. I asked you to give us some examples of what the Church HAS done so that we might compare it to the things which its member have done and, hopefully, see the difference you keep insisting on.

The Church doesn’t DO. It IS.

Only people DO.

The Church is that which is exhibited as wisdom by what the PEOPLE of the Church do to discover that wisdom.

Got it now?

You’ve told us repeatedly that the Church didn’t do the things we’re objecting to. Instead, you keep saying, it was only the Church’s members who did them.

That would be correct.

So, can you list off a few things that the Church HAS done. If the Church didn’t do the things under discussion, can you tell us some things the Church DID do?

Once again, the Church doesn’t DO anything.

But that doesn’t mean that the Church ISN’T something.

Once again, once again, to see what the Church is, and has to offer, check out the official writings of the Church, most exemplary of which would be the catechism and those documents referenced therein.

Or is it correct to say that the Church has never done a bloomin’ thing in 2,000 years?

The people of the Church, both living and otherwise, have done enormous things, both in volume and significance, but the Church has simply “been there” as a resource for us poor humans to either use or not, and “grow” or not.

I’m just trying to get a grip on your definitions. So I’ll repeat the question: please give us some examples of things the Church HAS done so that we may compare them to the things that her members have done and, hopefully, understand why the first fall in the first category and the others fall in the other category.

See my ramblings above for how it is that ONLY the people of the Church do things, and ONLY the Church is capable of not sinning by not being anything BUT holy simply because it is, and is constantly growing by being further “revealed” , and doesn’t do.

Now,… I realize you’ll take this as a rhetorical “cop-out”, but the simple fact is that this is indeed the way it is, in reality.

Just as you can’t “blame” mathematics, physics, and engineering for the actions of mathematicians, physicists and engineers who use their knowledge (science) for evil, you can’t blame the Church for the actions of evil-doing members of the Church.

As I said, even if ALL the living members of the Church “disappeared” the Church would still exist, which tells me, if not you, that the Church is not “just the living people of the Church”.

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

 

[rr1213]

Because that’s not what they where doing. They were killing people that were supposedly Catholic that were spreading Heresy.

Which was wrong. It’s wrong whether it is being done on behalf of the Catholic Church, a Protestant Church, a King, a government or whatever. Christ met alot of people who were teaching error…“you are a teacher of Israel and do not understand this” and worse. Christ was quick to both instruct in righteousness and correct belief and quick to forgive. When people were not responsive to his teaching, and were not repentant, Christ would also tell them what could be expected in the afterlife. Nonetheless, he never killed them, asked his followers to kill them, or called down Legions of Angels to kill them. Always, this was something that would be handled at a different time…in the hereafter or when Christ returned to earth. Jesus also taught, as noted above, that there will be tares with the wheat. He **explicitly **instructed his disciples not to root out those tares. There is no Scriptural support for the contention that heretics should be killed.

 

[fix]

Which was wrong. It’s wrong whether it is being done on behalf of the Catholic Church, a Protestant Church, a King, a government or whatever. Christ met alot of people who were teaching error…“you are a teacher of Israel and do not understand this” and worse. Christ was quick to both instruct in righteousness and correct belief and quick to forgive. When people were not responsive to his teaching, and were not repentant, Christ would also tell them what could be expected in the afterlife. Nonetheless, he never killed them, asked his followers to kill them, or called down Legions of Angels to kill them. Always, this was something that would be handled at a different time…in the hereafter or when Christ returned to earth. Jesus also taught, as noted above, that there will be tares with the wheat. He **explicitly **instructed his disciples not to root out those tares. There is no Scriptural support for the contention that heretics should be killed.

But, they were not killed for just not believing but for treason. We seem to be applying present day conditions to a very different time and culture. They are not equal.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Which was wrong. It’s wrong whether it is being done on behalf of the Catholic Church, a Protestant Church, a King, a government or whatever. Christ met alot of people who were teaching error…“you are a teacher of Israel and do not understand this” and worse. Christ was quick to both instruct in righteousness and correct belief and quick to forgive. When people were not responsive to his teaching, and were not repentant, Christ would also tell them what could be expected in the afterlife. Nonetheless, he never killed them, asked his followers to kill them, or called down Legions of Angels to kill them. Always, this was something that would be handled at a different time…in the hereafter or when Christ returned to earth. Jesus also taught, as noted above, that there will be tares with the wheat. He **explicitly **instructed his disciples not to root out those tares. There is no Scriptural support for the contention that heretics should be killed.

Very well said…

And remember, when Peter cut off that soldiers ear because they were arresting Christ, Jesus turned to him and said NO… Christ was NEVER a violent man. And if we are to emulate Him then we find ourselves just as non-violent. Even in the Temple when the merchants were defiling it all He did was yell with righteous anger and turn over tables. Not ONCE did he try to spill blood when they were out right disrespecting His Father’s house…

 

[Ahimsa]

As I said, even if ALL the living members of the Church “disappeared” the Church would still exist…

But if you include the members of the Church alive on earth, as well as alive ‘elsewhere’, then if all of those members were to disappear, would you still have a Church?

 

[Greg27]

I have seen the arguments of St Thomas for executing heretics. My great admiration for this wonderful saint aside, I still firmly believe, especially given the church’s emphasis on the dignity of the human person and the central and burning need to regard all human life as holy, execution even for religious ‘crimes’ is an extremely grave evil, in any historical period, and like other crimes against human life such as abortion, can never be justified due to the intrinsic moral evil involved in this act. After death there is no chance for someone to repent, but even with someone excommunicated, at least they are still alive and can repent. Justice is important, but mercy more so in my view.

 

[fix]

Very well said…

And remember, when Peter cut off that soldiers ear because they were arresting Christ, Jesus turned to him and said NO… Christ was NEVER a violent man. And if we are to emulate Him then we find ourselves just as non-violent. Even in the Temple when the merchants were defiling it all He did was yell with righteous anger and turn over tables. Not ONCE did he try to spill blood when they were out right disrespecting His Father’s house…

1. The Church never killed anyone. The secular authorities carried out the death penalty.
2. How do you know no one was hurt when Christ used the whip and turned tables over?