Was the burning of heretics justified?

[Keikiolu]

EDIT: It looks like Fix beat me to the punch…!! See directly above.

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.

You know,… I have to wonder…

Since only the “temporal power”, the territorial power, the non-Church power, had the right to exact “temporal punishment”, of which the death penalty would be an example,… wasn’t it ALWAYS the “temporal power” that did the killing, and not the Church at all?

I may be COMPLETELY off in the above stated premises, by I have a weird feeling that I’m not.

What the Church COULD do, I think, was to “excommunicate” the offender, which would (supposedly) allow the “temporal power” to do whatever they decided to do with the offender, which wouldn’t exactly make killing the offender “un-sinful”, but would at least remove the obligation of the Church to “protect” the offender as a member of the Church.

In other words, the Church removed itself as far as possible from having any say in the matter of the offender’s “crime”, which MUST have been “temporal” (a societal offense as opposed to a religious offense), and therefore any sin associated with the “punishment” was borne entirely by the temporal power.

In other other words,… the offender first was found guilty of “heresy” (for example) by the Church and excommunicated, then the “temporal power” found them guilty of a “crime against society” and had them executed for that societal crime.

Since the Church has no right to “kill” whatsoever, no heretic, etc, was EVER killed by the Church.

…unless this is all nonsense, which I don’t know to be a fact or not.

Where is this reasoning wrong,… and I don’t mean “morally” wrong…?

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

 

[rr1213]

1. The Church never killed anyone. The secular authorities carried out the death penalty.

It is a myth that the Church had nothing to do with these executions. The Church turned over heretics to the State knowing that they would be executed by the State. Same thing. The Church was morally complicit, no different from the situation of the Religious Jewish authorities being morally complicit (along with the Gentile Romans) for the crucifiction of Christ–they asked for Jesus to be killed even though technically he was killed by the Romans.

With respect to the Spanish Inquisition, Church complicity has been described as follows:

“However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

There were also times when Protestants killed those whom they believed to be heretics. This was equally as wrong. It doesn’t matter whose goose is being gored.

 

[fix]

EDIT: It looks like Fix beat me to the punch…!! See directly above.

You know,… I have to wonder…

Since only the “temporal power”, the territorial power, the non-Church power, had the right to exact “temporal punishment”, of which the death penalty would be an example,… wasn’t it ALWAYS the “temporal power” that did the killing, and not the Church at all?

I may be COMPLETELY off in the above stated premises, by I have a weird feeling that I’m not.

What the Church COULD do, I think, was to “excommunicate” the offender, which would (supposedly) allow the “temporal power” to do whatever they decided to do with the offender, which wouldn’t exactly make killing the offender “un-sinful”, but would at least remove the obligation of the Church to “protect” the offender as a member of the Church.

In other words, the Church removed itself as far as possible from having any say in the matter of the offender’s “crime”, which MUST have been “temporal” (a societal offense as opposed to a religious offense), and therefore any sin associated with the “punishment” was borne entirely by the temporal power.

In other other words,… the offender first was found guilty of “heresy” (for example) by the Church and excommunicated, then the “temporal power” found them guilty of a “crime against society” and had them executed for that societal crime.

Since the Church has no right to “kill” whatsoever, no heretic, etc, was EVER killed by the Church.

…unless this is all nonsense, which I don’t know to be a fact or not.

Where is this reasoning wrong,… and I don’t mean “morally” wrong…?

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

This is from the old CE:

The Church’s legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d’être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel…

Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to thelaws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws…

Heresy

 

[Publisher]

So in your minds, the “church” removing itself from the “heretic” as an agent of protection in no way made the “church” compicit in his execution? Amazing twists of logic and subtefuge in order to insist that the “church” was kept innocent.

In reality however the “church” did hand over the “heretic” for execution…and while a “formal agent” of the “church” didn’t “light the fire” or “wield the axe” it consented to the murder…sounds kind of like Saul who became Paul, he didn’t himself throw the stones to kill Stephen…but he held the coats of those that did.

 

[fix]

It is a myth that the Church had nothing to do with these executions. The Church turned over heretics to the State knowing that they would be executed by the State. Same thing. The Church was morally complicit, no different from the situation of the Religious Jewish authorities being morally complicit (along with the Gentile Romans) for the crucifiction of Christ–they asked for Jesus to be killed even though technically he was killed by the Romans.

With respect to the Spanish Inquisition, Church complicity has been described as follows:

“However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm

There were also times when Protestants killed those whom they believed to be heretics. This was equally as wrong. It doesn’t matter whose goose is being gored.

I reject your premise in that I do not think the death penalty is always wrong. Your source does not say the Church ever killed anyone. It says what I said that the Church turned the criminal over to the state which has the authority, from God, to take a life if deemed needed.

 

[rr1213]

So in your minds, the “church” removing itself from the “heretic” as an agent of protection in no way made the “church” compicit in his execution? Amazing twists of logic and subtefuge in order to insist that the “church” was kept innocent.

In reality however the “church” did hand over the “heretic” for execution…and while a “formal agent” of the “church” didn’t “light the fire” or “wield the axe” it consented to the murder…sounds kind of like Saul who became Paul, he didn’t himself throw the stones to kill Stephen…but he held the coats of those that did.

Yes, or the High Priests prevailing on Pontius Pilate to do their dirty work.

 

[fix]

Yes, or the High Priests prevailing on Pontius Pilate to do their dirty work.

There is nothing dirty about just punishment or protecting society from those who would cause great numbers of death and instability. Today, we underestimate what a threat treason was to the state.

 

[Brendan]

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.

It cannot be consider wrong, as God Himself gave the same Command.

Deut 13

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock.

If God Has commanded it, it cannot, BY DEFINITION, be said to be always wrong.

 

[Publisher]

Some of these responses are so very chilling.

 

[a_priori]

Some of these responses are so very chilling.

I agree.

 

[Singinbeauty]

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?

1. Same difference. They knew what was to happen when they turned them over to the authorities and since the church had such a high standing in how the government was run in those days you can’t honestly say that the church was clean from ANY wrong doing. They did it because they manipulated the system to get the government to do their dirty work for them. You can’t deny that…
2. Hurt maybe… killed?

 

[rr1213]

I reject your premise in that I do not think the death penalty is always wrong. Your source does not say the Church ever killed anyone. It says what I said that the Church turned the criminal over to the state which has the authority, from God, to take a life if deemed needed.

The source I cited speaks for itself. The Church was complicit in these deaths, whether or not the Church itself lit the flame.

Also, I’m glad that you reject the premise that the death penalty is always wrong. I agree. I do believe in the death penalty for premeditated murder with aggravated circumstances. Nonetheless, the death penalty is ALWAYS wrong if the offense consists merely of heresy.

 

[mozart-250]

Some of these responses are so very chilling.

Agreed.

 

[a_priori]

1. The Church never killed anyone. The secular authorities carried out the death penalty.

This is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Singinbeauty]

There is nothing dirty about just punishment or protecting society from those who would cause great numbers of death and instability. Today, we underestimate what a threat treason was to the state.

So you believe that the Jewish religious leaders were right in turning Christ over to Pilot for execution? And once they did that, their hands were clean of His blood… Is this what you believe?

 

[rr1213]

There is nothing dirty about just punishment or protecting society from those who would cause great numbers of death and instability. Today, we underestimate what a threat treason was to the state.

Surely you are not defending either the Jewish religious authorities or the Romans with respect to their crucifixition of Christ?

Both were wrong…the High Priests for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and for goading the Romans to kill him. The Romans were wrong because they killed an innocent man knowing that he was, indeed, innocent…a grave departure from their governmental responsibilities. In some ways, I think that you could argue that the Romans had the greater sin. In any event, we see that both Jew and Gentile are responsible for Christ’s death because, as we know, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, both Jew and Gentile, and all need the grace that only God offers.

 

[Singinbeauty]

It cannot be consider wrong, as God Himself gave the same Command.

Deut 13

If God Has commanded it, it cannot, BY DEFINITION, be said to be always wrong.

BIG BIG BIG difference between God commanding something and leaders of the catholic church commanding something… or do you believe that the catholic church and God are on the same level?

 

[mercygate]

I agree.

I think it’s important to separate the deed from the motivations for the deed. The urgency of protecting innocent souls from being led to Hell through false teachings was far more immediate to an age when people still believed in such a thing as Truth.

Keep in mind that in those days stealing a sheep was punishable by death.

This does not make killing heretics right and the Pope was right to make the statement he did apologizing for suffering inflicted by such policies – while at the same time admonishing that the actual history be brought to bear in placing a frame of perspective around the matter.
.
Today, we may very well and properly decry execution as a method of handling heresy but we might also do well to adopt the moral urgency of our forebears in defending the Faith by means we now deem to be acceptable.

 

[rr1213]

It cannot be consider wrong, as God Himself gave the same Command…[citing Deut 13]…If God Has commanded it, it cannot, BY DEFINITION, be said to be always wrong.

True, but God is sovereign and man is not. God reserves judgment to himself and, I have no doubt, God will punish heretics in a manner that is pleasing to God. The Deut. example is simply one of God himself deciding that the punishment shall be now rather than later.

 

[rr1213]

Some of these responses are so very chilling.

Scary actually. Another fine example of why the First Amendment of the US Constitution–or its equivalent in other countries–is necessary in a world that is corrupted by sin.