Was the burning of heretics justified?

[fix]

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…

I do not see it as anything unclean. The Church handed them over to the proper authority. You may only see this through the lens of the time you live in, but that view is narrow.

By mentioning who actually applied the penalty I want to be exact. The Church obviously knew what the penalty would be.The point is that penalty is not always unjust.

 

[fix]

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.

My understanding is there were killed for treason. That must be understood in the context of the time we are speaking of, not as if the same circumstances exist today.

 

[rr1213]

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?

Being a bit prophetic here, I’m not sure that we’re going to like his answer to your question…

 

[fix]

This is a distinction without a difference.

It is a distinction of fact.

 

[rr1213]

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.

Very well said and reasoned.

 

[fix]

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.

The state has the authority in these matters. Whether the state acts in a just way in each case is another matter.

 

[rr1213]

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.

The state has the authority in these matters. Whether the state acts in a just way in each case is another matter.

The State has the authority as long as that authority is not usurped by the religious authorities. I don’t think that you can absolve the High Priests by simply saying–“hey, it was Pontius Pilate’s decision”… Are you saying the the High Priests had no responsibility for Christ’s death? Really?

 

[Singinbeauty]

I do not see it as anything unclean. The Church handed them over to the proper authority. You may only see this through the lens of the time you live in, but that view is narrow.

You do not see anything unclean? Then why did the Pope apologize for it??? The church, at the time, had gotten a BIG head and anyone who decided to stand against some of the things it was doing were turned over to the authorities and put to death. Like rr said before… it was wrong then, now, and will forever be (to paraphrase) wrong. It wasn’t treason… It was people getting a mind for themselves and noticing something wasn’t quite right and then getting killed for it. Kind of like when the world killed the aposltes for standing up for what they believed… Hmmmm…

By mentioning who actually applied the penalty I want to be exact. The Church obviously knew what the penalty would be.The point is that penalty is not always unjust.

I think you should go back to when you own POPE apologized for the injustices… If he apologized for it do you disagree with him?

 

[a_priori]

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.

The real answer to whether or not the burning of heretics was justified depends on the perspective, as well as the time and place, of the person being asked.

When women were proclaimed to be witches I’m sure the data was collected with the latest witch-testing technology and interpreted by guidelines that were unassailable.

I think you make a very good point.

 

[fix]

The State has the authority as long as that authority is not usurped by the religious authorities.

Huh? At the time we speak of the Church and state were closely aligned.

I don’t think that you can absolve the High Priests by simply saying–“hey, it was Pontius Pilate’s decision”… Are you saying the the High Priests had no responsibility for Christ’s death? Really?

I am saying there is a big difference. In fact I see no analogy at all.

We are talking of the Church identifying heretics that posed a serious threat to stability of the culture. The state administered punishment as they saw fit. That does not prove the punishment was always unjust.

 

[a_priori]

It is a distinction of fact.

If the Church didn’t start the procedure would the person be dead?

 

[Publisher]

The “official” chruch…no matter who it was…WAS WRONG…and betrayed the very Spirit of Chirst and what he came to establish…the Kingdom of God…peace, love, gentleness, kindness, forgiveness, sacrificial suffering for OTHERS in the midst of evil.

I understand the “times” the executions for heresy took place…but they were still wrong…by any stretch of imagination…

I see such outcry here about Islam executing “heretics”…yet now I see defense of the Church for the very same thing…and some cry how it was “for the good of society”?

Both Islamic and Christian execution of heretics is damnable…evil…inspiried from hell itself…no justification for it at all, no matter how “obtuse” and well thought out some may believe…it lessens the whole message of the gospel and the work of Christ.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Huh? At the time we speak of the Church and state were closely aligned.

So how could their be a REAL distinction between the church and the state? In those days the church WAS the state. Everything that the state did was in accordance to what the church wanted.

I am saying there is a big difference. In fact I see no analogy at all.

We are talking of the Church identifying heretics that posed a serious threat to stability of the culture. The state administered punishment as they saw fit. That does not prove the punishment was always unjust.

And the Jewish leaders deemed Christ a heretic and accused Him of treason… So the jewish leaders did what the catholic church did… turned Him over to the state and tried to wipe their hands clean from it… But darn if that blood just wouldn’t wash away…

 

[Kevan]

Keikiolu:

the offender first was found guilty of “heresy” (for example) by the Church and excommunicated

What the Church COULD do, I think, was to “excommunicate” the offender

The Church doesn’t DO. It IS.

Only people DO.

the obligation of the Church to “protect” the offender as a member of the Church.

Once again, the Church doesn’t DO anything.

the Church removed itself as far as possible from having any say in the matter

Got it now?

No problem.

 

[Theinvisibleman]

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.

I believe that these actions, at the time, were justified because heresy is the cause for the damnation of souls and we execute people for murdering the body but heretics murder thousands of souls with their false teachings. Think about it, which is worse, for one person to die or for thousands to be led astray into hell because of false teachers and descievers. Even our lord himself said

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!”
(matthew 18:6-7)

so here jesus says that it would be better for a person to be drowed (this was a form of execution) then for him to be allowed to lead others into sin. So when catholic governments would execute heretics, they were simply preserving the catholic faith and put down thoes who would interfere with the salvation of souls which is all that really matters in this world. And another thing that people need to realize is that when a person was tried for heresy, he was given many opertunities to confess. John Hus for instance was give countless opertunities to renounce his heresy, even when he was tied to the stake the clergyment pleaded with him to recant but when he refused they were left with no choice.

I think that there is a movement today to apologize for these kinds of events but I can’t help but feel that these actions were at least somewhat justified. Now today we have more humane ways with dealing with these problems but back then there may not have been as many options. Think about it, if the secular governments had dealt with luther the reformation might never have happened, think of all the problems and heesies we have had to deal with becuase of the reformation!

Please post your comments.

In my(and most others) view it is absolutely absurd to kill someone for having different beliefs than your own. Like who makes us an authority on such matters ? We have no proof of any religion, so why should we criticize others for being false , when we ourselves have no more proof to differentiate the catholic faith from others in terms of it being false.

No, it is unjustifiable, and it ranks as one of the worst acts of religous intolerance and human savagery in our history. Punishments and so on, if need be alloted, should be left to the “Boss” aka God(if he does exist)

 

[Theinvisibleman]

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.

I believe that these actions, at the time, were justified because heresy is the cause for the damnation of souls and we execute people for murdering the body but heretics murder thousands of souls with their false teachings. Think about it, which is worse, for one person to die or for thousands to be led astray into hell because of false teachers and descievers. Even our lord himself said

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!”
(matthew 18:6-7)

so here jesus says that it would be better for a person to be drowed (this was a form of execution) then for him to be allowed to lead others into sin. So when catholic governments would execute heretics, they were simply preserving the catholic faith and put down thoes who would interfere with the salvation of souls which is all that really matters in this world. And another thing that people need to realize is that when a person was tried for heresy, he was given many opertunities to confess. John Hus for instance was give countless opertunities to renounce his heresy, even when he was tied to the stake the clergyment pleaded with him to recant but when he refused they were left with no choice.

I think that there is a movement today to apologize for these kinds of events but I can’t help but feel that these actions were at least somewhat justified. Now today we have more humane ways with dealing with these problems but back then there may not have been as many options. Think about it, if the secular governments had dealt with luther the reformation might never have happened, think of all the problems and heesies we have had to deal with becuase of the reformation!

Please post your comments.

In my(and most others) view it is absolutely absurd to kill someone for having different beliefs than your own. Like who makes us an authority on such matters ? We have no proof of any religion, so why should we criticize others for being false , when we ourselves have no more proof to differentiate the catholic faith from others in terms of it being false.

No, it is unjustifiable, and it ranks as one of the worst acts of religous intolerance and human savagery in our history. Punishments and so on, if need be alloted, should be left to the “Boss” aka God(if he does exist)

 

[Mirdath]

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.

Unfortunately the purest of motivations do not excuse wrongdoing. I realize that it was the Church’s goal to preserve itself and Western society, and yes, that’s most certainly a noble goal; however, it was bought at the price of dissenters’ blood and flesh – a price the Church did not and does not have the moral authority to pay.

 

[Ahimsa]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, no doubt.

 

[LJN21]

In my(and most others) view it is absolutely absurd to kill someone for having different beliefs than your own. Like who makes us an authority on such matters ? We have no proof of any religion, so why should we criticize others for being false , when we ourselves have no more proof to differentiate the catholic faith from others in terms of it being false.

No, it is unjustifiable, and it ranks as one of the worst acts of religous intolerance and human savagery in our history. Punishments and so on, if need be alloted, should be left to the “Boss” aka God(if he does exist)

Wow is history and Vocab just not taught anymore?

her·e·tic /n. ˈhɛrɪtɪk; adj. ˈhɛrɪtɪk, həˈrɛtɪk/
–noun 1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

This aren’t people that just believe something different. They are people living under a Catholic monarchy (No separation of Church and State) that profess to be Catholic that are spreading Heresy that were tried, convicted and executed for treason.

 

[LJN21]

So how could their be a REAL distinction between the church and the state? In those days the church WAS the state. Everything that the state did was in accordance to what the church wanted.

I think Queen Isabella might be surprised to hear that. These weren’t just pawns of Rome.

And the Jewish leaders deemed Christ a heretic and accused Him of treason… So the jewish leaders did what the catholic church did… turned Him over to the state and tried to wipe their hands clean from it… But darn if that blood just wouldn’t wash away…

Pilate knew he was Innocent and did it anyway. That’s why it was wrong. Your comparing apples to oranges.