Was the burning of heretics justified?

[mercygate]

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 everybody: step aside. Shiann is in the game. **WARNING!**Nobody but NOBODY on CAF knows more about the ins and outs of the Inquisition(s) than Shiann. Sit back and watch her work!

 

[rr1213]

"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”.

Whatever that means. JPII was a good man, he was simply being diplomatic here…too much so in my opinion.

 

[Greg27]

I find the case of Meister Eckhart very interesting to think of in this. In this case, Meister Eckhart was the only major living medieval theologian to be accused of teaching heretical ideas. Because he was a senior member of the Dominican Order, he didn’t have to answer the charges (which were initially made by the Archbishop of the region Eckhart preached in) directly but appealed to the Papal Court at Avignon. The theologians in charge of the Inquisition never tortured Eckhart or threatened him with death, though they carefully analysed some of his sermons and works and drew up lists of propositions of statements which they felt were either heretical or suspect of heresy. The initial list had about 160 or so statements and these were reduced to about 20 or so, about a dozen of which were condemned as heretical by Pope John XXII (a very good analysis is given in McGinn’s history of mysticism as well as his book on mystical theology).

In contrast to this, Margaret Porete, allegedly a member of the ‘Beguine’ movement, was accused of heresy, given several opportunities to stop spreading her work (The Mirror of Simple Souls) and given opportunities to recant, though she refused, and was burned.

Clearly the historical factors behind the Inquisition and burning of alleged heretics was complex and even on a case by case basis, was strongly conditioned by class and power considerations. Eckhart no doubt survived a large extent because of the prestigious positions he held in clerical office and also because as a man in medieval times he had many advantages over women.

Clearly in forming a historical judgement on these events we should take these sorts of factors into account, but even looking back there is a certain terrible brutality in putting people to death for dissenting in matters of faith, even if at the time people believed there were good reasons for doing so.

 

[Seagirt]

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. It is not our role, as individuals, society, the church or the government to dole out temporal punishment for heretical beliefs or acts. Second, to do so confuses the distinct roles of Church and State. Third, burning at the stake is a reprehensible means of execution. 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.

Good Post, Sir. Those were much different times-- when the Church had temporal power. We know we cannot do that today. Sadly the Muslim faith does kill infidels or those who are not orthodox in their eyes. It seems all religion has to go thru this phase. I would say that the popular media like PBS does exaggerate the authoritarian nature of the Church in those times ( Middle Ages ).

 

[LJN21]

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…

So if someone is trying to kill me I have no right to self defence? If I kill them am I guilty of murder?

Your ignoring the OT (after the commandments were given) where the death penalty mandated by God for tons of things. Many of which today would seem completely unjust.

Your also discounting 2000 years of church teaching that the death penalty IS moral and just.

 

[mercygate]

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…

Once again, Singin’, heresy is death to the soul. Heresy is a more serious crime against the human person than murder. That is still true, although during the Inquisitions people (on both sides) actually believed it.

 

[Sixtus]

—Quote (Originally by 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.

Equally the convicted made to wear a crucifix for anything from 6 - 12 months. So what has changed? Folk wear them as jewelery.

Burings by the Church is actually a myth. Show me one shread of evidence that the Catholic Church ever burnt anyone

It was the civil authorities who did the burning. The Catholic Church was very reluctant to agree with such barbarity, she believed in the opposite: that souls might become reconciled to God.

 

[Sixtus]

Catholic Inquisitional Ecclaisiastical Courts were so barbaric and cruel that it was common for criminals to escape the death penalty, to blaspheme in court in order to get it transfered from the Judiciary to an Ecclaisiastical court as they were certain of a better more fair defence and a much more lenient sentence if found guilty

 

[LJN21]

warning some what off topic
I find the actual history of the Inquisitions very interesting. It was actually one of the most just court system at the time. (That’s not saying abuses never took places or anything like that.) There is so much misinformation today on so many historical topics. History being written by the Victor and all.

 

[LJN21]

Catholic Inquisitional Ecclaisiastical Courts were so barbaric and cruel that it was common for criminals to escape the death penalty, to blaspheme in court in order to get it transfered from the Judiciary to an Ecclaisiastical court as they were certain of a better more fair defence and a much more lenient sentence if found guilty

Oh the atrocity!

 

[rr1213]

Once again, Singin’, heresy is death to the soul. Heresy is a more serious crime against the human person than murder. That is still true, although during the Inquisitions people (on both sides) actually believed it.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s.

 

[Shiann]

Whatever that means. JPII was a good man, he was simply being diplomatic here…too much so in my opinion.

JPII diplomatic? Ok, but not at the cost of the Catholic Faith.

A Catholic must not just avoid blatant sin, but also avoid that which gives the impression of sin. This is why it is wrong for individuals (unrelated of the opposite sex) who are not married to live together- even if they are living as brother and sister.

The very act tarnishes the Church, and gives God a bad name so to speak. For the earthly representation of Him IS the Church.

His words are actually very efficient and to the point. Diplomacy often has much flowery grandeur and avoidance of the issue- I do not see that in this statement.

 

[rr1213]

It was the civil authorities who did the burning. The Catholic Church was very reluctant to agree with such barbarity, she believed in the opposite: that souls might become reconciled to God.

Read my post no. 138 above

 

[rr1213]

JPII diplomatic? Ok, but not at the cost of the Catholic Faith.

A Catholic must not just avoid blatant sin, but also avoid that which gives the impression of sin. This is why it is wrong for individuals (unrelated of the opposite sex) who are not married to live together- even if they are living as brother and sister.

The very act tarnishes the Church, and gives God a bad name so to speak. For the earthly representation of Him IS the Church.

His words are actually very efficient and to the point. Diplomacy often has much flowery grandeur and avoidance of the issue- I do not see that in this statement.

Maybe I was being too diplomatic by saying he was being diplomatic.

 

[Shiann]

Read my post no. 138 above

We have shown that it was the intent of the Inquisitors to bring everyone into the Fold. Those who refused to reject the evil of their lives (after due process) were bound the secular punishment akin to treason- for it was treason of the highest magnitude- according to the SECULAR authorities.

How is it the fault of the Church?

(Taking that time, culture and society into consideration?)

 

[Mirdath]

Catholic Inquisitional Ecclaisiastical Courts were so barbaric and cruel that it was common for criminals to escape the death penalty, to blaspheme in court in order to get it transfered from the Judiciary to an Ecclaisiastical court as they were certain of a better more fair defence and a much more lenient sentence if found guilty

Considering the state of the civil courts at the time, are you surprised? A step up from rock bottom is still pretty low.

Let us not forget that while many accounts of the Inquisition’s barbarity and bloodthirst are exaggerated, this does not exonerate Tomas de Torquemada and his peers – only lessens the charge.

 

[Singinbeauty]

We have shown that it was the intent of the Inquisitors to bring everyone into the Fold. Those who refused to reject the evil of their lives (after due process) were bound the secular punishment akin to treason- for it was treason of the highest magnitude.

How is it the fault of the Church?

(Taking that time, culture and society into consideration?)

If the church and state were two totally different entities how was it treason and punishable by death?

 

[rr1213]

We have shown that it was the intent of the Inquisitors to bring everyone into the Fold. Those who refused to reject the evil of their lives (after due process) were bound the secular punishment akin to treason- for it was treason of the highest magnitude.

How is it the fault of the Church?

(Taking that time, culture and society into consideration?)

The Church knew exactly what was going to happen when they turned the heretic over to the State. In that way, even considering the historical context, they were complicit. If you know exactly what is going to happen, and what is going to happen is unjust or cruel, then you are participating in that sin through your cooperation.

BTW, you have church people today who refuse to turn illegal aliens over to the authorities, thinking that this is injust and cruel, even though they are breaking the law by aiding and assisting the illegals. These Church folk believe that they would be complicit in turning them over to the authorities, even though all you’re looking at is deportation.

 

[Shiann]

If the church and state were two totally different entities how was it treason and punishable by death?

The church at the time had a great influence on secular authorities. The Church often convinced rulers to allow it to provide assistance to poor, education opportunities, where none would have normally been available. I have already given evidence that secular authorites turned to the inquisitional form of criminal review because of it being superior to human dignity and justice.

I find it hard to balance this truth with your belief that the Church just wanted to burn people who didn’t think like them.

I believe you are still erroneously placing today’s societal standards on that of medieval europe.

 

[LJN21]

The Church knew exactly what was going to happen when they turned the heretic over to the State. In that way, even considering the historical context, they were complicit. If you know exactly what is going to happen, and what is going to happen is unjust or cruel, then you are participating in that sin through your cooperation.

Cruel and unjust by today’s standards. There are people that think lethal injection is cruel and unjust. You have to take it in historical context. The Church didn’t and hasn’t even said that their execution was unjust. If its not a sin there is nothing to cooperate in.

BTW, you have church people today who refuse to turn illegal aliens over to the authorities, thinking that this is injust and cruel, even though they are breaking the law by aiding and assisting the illegals. These Church folk believe that they would be complicit in turning them over to the authorities, even though all you’re looking at is deportation.

That is a whole other can of worm that would probably make for more pages than this one. Lets not get off topic.