Was the burning of heretics justified?

[rr1213]

Your cooperation please for an experiment…

Is there anyone posting in this thread who CANNOT agree with the following statement?

“Today, in 2007, there is no valid justification for burning someone alive at the stake on account of the fact that the person is a heretic.”

If you CAN’T agree to the above statement, let’s hear it now and the reasons why. Let’s establish this one and then move backwards in time…

 

[Shiann]

Actually if there is enough evidence to show that you are a heretic- that is when you would be brought in for questioning (under this Canon). This is really no different than our current system of interrogation for criminal activity.

If the proper authorities have deduced through investigation that you are suspicious- you are brought in for questioning. At that time you have every opportunity to defend yourself and clarify the investigation. If you cannot- you are put in jail.

If you were questioned for heresy and you could not provide a defense- you were excommunicated for a whole year during which time you were able to provide evidence for your adherence to the Faith. If by one year you did not- THEN you were turned over to the secular authorities for punishment.

No willie-nillie extermination.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

 

[Shiann]

Further, the terrible burnings, and torture without due justice is also a terrible “Inquisition Myth”:

Despite the compelling Gothic fictions, the evidence leads us to a wholly different conclusion. The procedures of the Inquisition are well known through a whole series of papal bulls and other authoritative documents, but mainly through such formularies and manuals as were prepared by St. Raymond Peñaforte (c1180-1275), the great Spanish canonist, and Bernard Gui (1261-1331), one of the most celebrated inquisitors of the early 14th Century. The Inquisitors were certainly interrogators, but they were theological experts who followed the rules and instructiones meticulously, and were dismissed and punished when they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223 Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by Gregory IX.

Maycock, The Inquisition, 128-29

 

[Shiann]

Concerning torture, Prof. Kamen recently said, “In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7,000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice.”

“The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition,” BBC documentary, Nov. 6, 1994

 

[rr1213]

Actually if there is enough evidence to show that you are a heretic- that is when you would be brought in for questioning (under this Canon). This is really no different than our current system of interrogation for criminal activity.

If the proper authorities have deduced through investigation that you are suspicious- you are brought in for questioning. At that time you have every opportunity to defend yourself and clarify the investigation. If you cannot- you are put in jail.

If you were questioned for heresy and you could not provide a defense- you were excommunicated for a whole year during which time you were able to provide evidence for your adherence to the Faith. If by one year you did not- THEN you were turned over to the secular authorities for punishment.

No willie-nillie extermination.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

Ok. So all you are saying is that the Church exercised due process when it
decided that people should be killed for their religious beliefs. Great.

 

[Holly3278]

No it wasn’t. Even Catholics today are against the death penalty.

 

[rr1213]

Concerning torture, Prof. Kamen recently said, “In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7,000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice.”

“The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition,” BBC documentary, Nov. 6, 1994

The fact that the Body of Christ would use torture in any degree in order to determine heresy is indefensible.

 

[LJN21]

Your cooperation please for an experiment…

Is there anyone posting in this thread who CANNOT agree with the following statement?

“Today, in 2007, there is no valid justification for burning someone alive at the stake on account of the fact that the person is a heretic.”

If you CAN’T agree to the above statement, let’s here it and the reasons why.

Well that’s almost two questions

Short answer is there is no justification.

Long answer

I don’t think there is any valid justification for burning people at the stake today’s society period.

I do believe the death pentaly is moral.

I also think that in a country build around a Catholic Government (there isn’t one today so this is really hypotical) I think a case could be made for someone that is a citizen of that country that professes to be a Catholic that is teaching heresy to be punished in some way.

 

[LJN21]

No it wasn’t. Even Catholics today are against the death penalty.

Not all Catholics.

It is still the teaching of the church it is moral, its in the CCC and already quoted once in this thread.

 

[Shiann]

Ok. So all you are saying is that the Church exercised due process when it
decided that people should be killed for their religious beliefs. Great.

The Church determined that people espousing they were CATHOLIC went about purposely teaching contrary to the Catholic faith. It wasn’t about religious beliefs, it was about defending the Catholic faith. I don’t see anything in that Canon that would indicate that Jews or athiests or pagans were to be interrogated.

If a person said they were Catholic, yet purposefully and knowingly taught contrary to Catholic doctrine and dogma the Church interrogated that. If after lengthy due process the individual still remained consistent in their determination to undermine the Catholic faith they were turned over to the secular authorities.

The secular authorities (the king) decided that was akin to treason against the state, and the individual was punished accordingly.

 

[Shiann]

The fact that the Body of Christ would use torture in any degree in order to determine heresy is indefensible.

By todays culture and definition of society I completely agree.

 

[LJN21]

Ok. So all you are saying is that the Church exercised due process when it
decided that people should be killed for their religious beliefs. Great.

Again with the religious beliefs thing. Are you ignoring what a heretic is? Do you not thing it is bad for someone that claims to be Catholic to go around and tell people there is no Real Presents? Or that Jesus wasn’t God he was just a man?

 

[rr1213]

Again with the religious beliefs thing. Are you ignoring what a heretic is? Do you not thing it is bad for someone that claims to be Catholic to go around and tell people there is no Real Presents? Or that Jesus wasn’t God he was just a man?

I know what a heretic is (afterall I’ve been accused more than once of having heretical beliefs in these very forums as well as other places ).

Is being a heretic or, if you will, holding heretical beliefs “bad”? Of course. However, we do not read off the same page as to which beliefs are heretical. Catholics would be in a bad spot if Protestants in the US for example declared that Catholics were heretics and should be imprisoned or killed for those heretical beliefs (of course, only after the exercise of due process though ). We don’t do this because it would be wrong to coerce someone else’s conscience regarding their religious beliefs. We live in a free country, not a theocratic tyranny.

So, where does that leave the so-called “Catholic” who boldly proclaims that the Mass does not include the Real Presence of Christ? In the eyes of Catholics (and–for what it’s worth–in the eyes of this Protestant) it makes such person a heretic. And, in this country and all free countries, such person has the right to be a heretic. When God himself does not force himself on us, man has no justification in doing so either…whether through the tools of the Church or State. We should pray for such a heretic, we should rebuke him, we should even excomunicate him from the Church if necessary. Ultimately, however, it is up to GOD to deal with him in such manner as GOD decides in his sovereign will to be appropriate.

 

[Shiann]

Food for thought:

Although the names of witnesses against the accused were suppressed, the accused was given an opportunity to protect himself from false accusations by giving the Inquisitor a detailed list of the names of personal enemies. With this, he could conclusively invalidate certain testimony against him. He also had the power to appeal to a higher authority, even the Papacy if need be.

Despite the apparent prohibition of appeals (appelatione remota), Gregory IX and his successor Innocent IV repeatedly entertained appeals made by complainants and voided unjust decisions. Throughout this whole period it appears that appeals found their way to Rome for redress. In fact, modeled on the long forgotten regulations of the Justinian Code, through the inquisitorial process the Church brought the appeals procedure into the legislation of the Middle Ages, for appeals were quite out of character for the local, feudal manorial courts. The success of the Church system of justice was not lost on secular rulers, who eventually adopted appeals as regular procedure in their own reorganized and centralized court systems.

Shannon, The Medieval Inquisition, pp.139-40.

 

[Shiann]

I know what a heretic is (afterall I’ve been accused more than once of having heretical beliefs in these very forums as well as other places ).

Is being a heretic or, if you will, holding heretical beliefs “bad”? Of course. However, we do not read off the same page as to which beliefs are heretical. Catholics would be in a bad spot if Protestants in the US for example declared that Catholics were heretics and should be imprisoned or killed for those heretical beliefs (of course, only after the exercise of due process though ). We don’t do this because it would be wrong to coerce someone else’s conscience regarding their religious beliefs. We live in a free country, not a theocratic tyranny.

So, where does that leave the so-called “Catholic” who boldly proclaims that the Mass does not include the Real Presence of Christ? In the eyes of Catholics (and–for what it’s worth–in the eyes of this Protestant) it makes such person a heretic. And, in this country and all free countries, such person has the right to be a heretic. When God himself does not force himself on us, man has no justification in doing so either…whether through the tools of the Church or State. We should pray for such a heretic, we should rebuke him, we should even excomunicate him from the Church if necessary. Ultimately, however, it is up to GOD to deal with him in such manner as GOD decides in his sovereign will to be appropriate.

Again you use today’s standards of society and culture and apply it to a culture and society hundreds of years ago.

This is one of the first errors in historical debate.

Does the Church not have a right to protect itself? Does it have a right to protect it’s property from vandals? If so, why not be able to protect the very beliefs of the body?

Again we aren’t dealing with people who merely held different beliefs. Those who were turned over to secular authorities claimed they WERE Catholic, yet REFUSED to adhere to Catholic beliefs. How was that the Church’s fault?

Obviously an individual had plenty of opportunity to get everything straightened out- yet they obstinately refused with full knowledge of the consequences I might add.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Again with the religious beliefs thing. Are you ignoring what a heretic is? Do you not thing it is bad for someone that claims to be Catholic to go around and tell people there is no Real Presents? Or that Jesus wasn’t God he was just a man?

How does this constitute killing this person??? It may be a bad thing but not punishable by death. The catholic church got a big head and decided that it could judge people and kill them instead of leaving it to God…

 

[Singinbeauty]

Again you use today’s standards of society and culture and apply it to a culture and society hundreds of years ago.

This is one of the first errors in historical debate.

God said ‘Thou shall NOT kill’ not ‘If they don’t do what you want them to then kill them but otherwise don’t do it’. Unless God Himself came down and told the leaders of the catholic church to kill the heretics then it was and is WRONG.

And IF it was justified then your Pope would not have apologised for it…

 

[mercygate]

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.

That is what I was saying. I was not excusing anything. Nevertheless, the situation requires perspective. Stealing a sheep was a capital offense. Nobody would justify that today; just as nobody would justify burning heretics at the stake.

 

[rr1213]

Again you use today’s standards of society and culture and apply it to a culture and society hundreds of years ago.

This is one of the first errors in historical debate.

Well, first, your question was not limited to any particular historical context. Indeed, it is stated in the present tense so I reasonably assumed you were talking about now.

If you were not talking about now, but rather the middle ages, then my answer would pretty much be the same. We have to be careful about judging people from the past based on the standards of today, yet we do so all the time. How many times have you heard demands for apologies for the institution of slavery? Or for the way that European immigrants in America treated the Native Americans? Or for the US supposed land grab of Mexican land during the Mexican-American War? These are a few examples from US history…posters from the Old World, especially Europe where they still argue over battle that took place in the 13th century, can add their own examples.

Morality doesn’t change unless you believe in relativism and, then, morality still doesn’t change…a relativist is simply wrong. I do believe that is a concept that the Catholic Church defends admirably. So…where does that leave us? If it is wrong to burn somebody alive today for the “crime” of heresy (a statement with which you agreed), then it was just as wrong to do the same thing during the middle ages. The culpability may be somewhat different due to the historical context, or there may be mitigating circumstances, but wrong, is wrong, is wrong is wrong.

 

[Shiann]

God said ‘Thou shall NOT kill’ not ‘If they don’t do what you want them to then kill them but otherwise don’t do it’. Unless God Himself came down and told the leaders of the catholic church to kill the heretics then it was and is WRONG.

And IF it was justified then your Pope would not have apologised for it…

"We humbly ask for forgiveness for the part that each of us with his or her behaviors has played in such evils thus contributing to disrupting the face of the church. At the same time, as we confess our sins let us forgive the faults committed by others towards us. "

Pope John Paul II

From what I can see he was not apologizing for acts of the Church, but for any “evils contributing to disrupting the face of the church”.