Was the burning of heretics justified?

[Zooey]

Mirdath, there is not one in that list of horrors, that was not used by Protestant rulers against the Catholics.
That is precisely my point. (And I suspect you may have on rose-coloured glasses as to what hanging from town to town entailed; I have been kind in my description).

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, there is not one in that list of horrors, that was not used by Protestant rulers against the Catholics.

All violent fanatics look more or less the same to me. The actions of one lot neither excuse nor condemn another’s. We are simply talking about the medieval Catholic group in this case.

That is precisely my point. (And I suspect you may have on rose-coloured glasses as to what hanging from town to town entailed; I have been kind in my description).

I know what it is. My statement stands.

 

[mozart-250]

One comment.

The original proposition of this thread was not written by a Protestant as an attack on Catholicism. If it were, an appropriate response would be “pot/kettle”.

The original proposition of this thread was written by a Catholic as at least a partial defense of the practice of the inquisition and the horrors contained within.

That proposition represents an attempt to defend what is indefensible.

Thankfully your own popes (as well as some of the more thoughtful Catholics here) have rejected this proposition.

It is chilling that self-professed agnostics and neo-pagans are speaking on this thread with more moral clarity than some Christians.

No! The burning of heretics can never be justified.

 

[Ella]

Mirdath, there is not one in that list of horrors, that was not used by Protestant rulers against the Catholics.
That is precisely my point. (And I suspect you may have on rose-coloured glasses as to what hanging from town to town entailed; I have been kind in my description).

You keep making that point, when it is irrelevant to the discussion. Arguing about whether or not burning was nicer or crueler than other execution methods is irrelevant, too. Arguing that killing someone for stealing a sheep is irrelevant as well. We’re talking about killing someone because they do not agree with you about ***religion. ***

The discussion is titled, “Was the burning of heretics justified?” not, “Did Protestants kill heretics just as Catholics did?”

I too am shocked that posters on here are saying that yes, it was justified to burn heretics.

Indeed, the very arguments used to defend the practice on here, like saying that heretics are disruptive to society, are used by Muslims to justify killing apostates from Islam to Christianity, today.

 

[a_priori]

No, they appear in the Reformation Era, just like the Lutherans and the Church of England. They just didn’t believe in killing those whose religion disagreed with their religion.

I was a Baptist of one flavor or another for 40 years. I get the drill. My point was intended as a tongue-in-cheek way to refer to the fact that Baptists are newbies compared to the historical Churches of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I should have been a little less cryptic I guess.

 

[rr1213]

I am simply pointing out, that putting all this blame on the Catholic Church, as though there were some unique occurrence,chargeable to Catholics, is totally foreign to the facts of history.

I’ve never said that Zooey. If you look at my somewhat passionate posts in this ridicuolus thread you will see that I’ve condemned ANY persecution by ANYONE on account of a person’s faith. I don’t care whether this was done by the Pope, Luther, Calvin, Mohamand or whoever…you persecute people for their faith you are wrong. That is a judgment left to God. If you torture and kill people because of their faith you are even more wrong.

My guess is that we are letting the words get in the way here and that you and I are in agreement on this matter actually.

 

[Theinvisibleman]

Thats not Grammar Grammar would be using ‘ain’t’ instead of ‘is not’.

And no it doesn’t.

Anything written down is goverened by the rules of grammar.

And yes it does.

 

[Zooey]

My guess is that we are letting the words get in the way here and that you and I are in agreement on this matter actually.

Since I am, and always have been, a vocal opponent of the death penalty, you are probably right about this.
But I have observed all too much, in my 60 years, of non-Catholic Christians who ignore the fact that there were many, many Catholics killed by Protestants, whilst at the same time, reciting a list of Protestants executed by Catholics as “proof” of whatever evil they want to push onto Catholics at that moment. (Have you ever read Foxe?? I own a copy, pressed on me by an eager Baptist, trying to convince me to join his anti-Catholicism… If he only knew…)

I do stand by my statements however, that I do not believe that burning, as opposed to other available forms of execution was chosen from any motive of cruelty. On the contrary, it was a relatively rapid means of death in comparison to other methods. And the belief at the time was, that it was not considered to be particularly painful. (I do know that this is counter-intuitive, but then, the Middle Ages didn’t know a lot of things that we consider fairly basic…).

Perhaps the unfairest accusation of all (and I am not saying that you are someone who is doing this), is to claim that “the Catholic Church killed [X number of] people for believing heresy”. It was the various governments that were doing the killing. It was not the Catholic Church. One might argue that Calvinists killed people for religious reasons, since they had a veritable theocracy in Geneva…but I don’t intend to go there, either.
In spite of the notions of some here, I am not “defend[ing] the practice on here”, either. I am simply attempting to put the whole question into some form of perspective. These were the Middle Ages; it is not the 21st C. we are on about.
I know this is not a popular stance. I didn’t expect it to be. I insist, however, that when we look at this subject, that we look at it, as compared to what else was happening in the societies of which these events were a part.
As far as I can see, there are few enough posters here, willing to turn a clean eye on this part of the story. Some even seem to be overlooking the fact that, if we were all to be suddenly transported back in time, that I happen to be one of those who would almost certainly end up being executed myself!! While not a pleasant thought, it does tend to give me a rather interesting perspective…
And then, too, I remember that my own beloved Teresa of Avila wrote that, if she believed that anything that she had written or said were heretical, she would “take myself to the [Spanish] Inquisition, and turn myself in”. She was a woman of strong principles. I can scarcely desert the field, if only for that one reason alone…

 

[KarenNC]

I do stand by my statements however, that I do not believe that burning, as opposed to other available forms of execution was chosen from any motive of cruelty. On the contrary, it was a relatively rapid means of death in comparison to other methods. And the belief at the time was, that it was not considered to be particularly painful. (I do know that this is counter-intuitive, but then, the Middle Ages didn’t know a lot of things that we consider fairly basic…).

Since none of us was present at the time, nor, thankfully, has experienced such a death, and the claim that burning alive is not, indeed, a horrible form of death is extremely counter-intuitive, on what do you base your argument that such a belief existed at the time?

If burning alive was considered a relatively rapid means of death in comparison to such methods as hanging or beheading, why, then, was it not considered the standard for all crimes punishable by death, especially for nobility? It wasn’t for lack of fuel.

Why was a purportedly easier, quicker and more humane method used for heretics (which is claimed by those in this forum as an extremely dangerous and heinous offense), and purportedly more lingering, painful, inhumane methods used for things such as murder and theft? Why were, then, these other crimes, which supposedly affected fewer people and posed less of a danger to society, worthy of crueler treatment and, one must assume, more of a deterrent? Why were condemned thieves and murderers not spouting heresy left and right in order to seek this gentler, quicker form of death?

Nero was doing the Christians a favor when he burned them as torches for his garden parties rather than killing them in some other manner?

It seems that your position, if true, must mean that heresy was not seen as serious a crime in medieval times as theft, much less treason, and therefore was deserving of a more humane form of execution.

 

[Protestant101]

What was it when Protestants did it? Do you denounce the protestant inquisition, witch burnings and other killing of those who do not believe as they did?

Why are you so defensive with the plain facts? Protestants today do not defend such an evil position as do some Catholics, even on this board. You also appear to be supporting torture and murder in “the name of God.”

I will repeat my question. This is called a war crime in many parts of the world. What is it when a Church does it?

 

[Protestant101]

Why was a purportedly easier, quicker and more humane method used for heretics (which is claimed by those in this forum as an extremely dangerous and heinous offense), and purportedly more lingering, painful, inhumane methods used for things such as murder and theft? Why were, then, these other crimes, which supposedly affected fewer people and posed less of a danger to society, worthy of crueler treatment and, one must assume, more of a deterrent? Why were condemned thieves and murderers not spouting heresy left and right in order to seek this gentler, quicker form of death?

Originally Posted by Zooey
I do stand by my statements however, that I do not believe that burning, as opposed to other available forms of execution was chosen from any motive of cruelty. On the contrary, it was a relatively rapid means of death in comparison to other methods. And the belief at the time was, that it was not considered to be particularly painful. (I do know that this is counter-intuitive, but then, the Middle Ages didn’t know a lot of things that we consider fairly basic…).

Obviously, no one on this forum has any ideas what they are talking about here. How can this even be a point of debate? That is ludicrous to put it mildly!! I have had the misfortune to be burned severely, over 50% of my body. You will never convince me of this garbage.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Obviously, no one on this forum has any ideas what they are talking about here. How can this even be a point of debate? That is ludicrous to put it mildly!! I have had the misfortune to be burned severely, over 50% of my body. You will never convince me of this garbage.

I’m sorry to hear of your misfortune. Hope you have recovered well from it by now. My heart goes out to you.

What people are talking about is not the reality of burning but instead the perception of people at the time. Roman law used to use crucifixion to punish heretics. They later changed to burning because they believed that burning was less cruel the crucifixion.

Their justification was that crucifixion could take days to kill a person while they were in agony the entire time. Burning killed the person in minutes. So they assumed less suffering.

People were barbaric in those days. Burning was used as the punishment for several crimes.

I doubt anyone here actually believes that burning a person alive is humane at all.

 

[Mirdath]

I’m sorry to hear of your misfortune. Hope you have recovered well from it by now. My heart goes out to you.

What people are talking about is not the reality of burning but instead the perception of people at the time. Roman law used to use crucifixion to punish heretics. They later changed to burning because they believed that burning was less cruel the crucifixion.

Their justification was that crucifixion could take days to kill a person while they were in agony the entire time. Burning killed the person in minutes. So they assumed less suffering.

Yet there were still better options. Why not choose them?

Crucifixion is essentially death by slow torture. Suspended by the arms, one droops, making breathing difficult if not impossible; so one then tries to stand, gasping for air while pain shoots through the legs and feet. Repeat until the energy to brace up is gone, and the victim asphyxiates. The two thieves’ legs were broken to speed up the process, so they could be taken down before the Sabbath.

Burning is faster; but it was still hardly the most humane punishment possible. What was the problem with hanging to break the neck or beheading? Neither requires electric-chair levels of technology.

People were barbaric in those days. Burning was used as the punishment for several crimes.

People are still barbaric; many posts in this very thread indicate that those impulses are alive and well.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Yet there were still better options. Why not choose them?
Crucifixion is essentially death by slow torture. Suspended by the arms, one droops, making breathing difficult if not impossible; so one then tries to stand, gasping for air while pain shoots through the legs and feet. Repeat until the energy to brace up is gone, and the victim asphyxiates. The two thieves’ legs were broken to speed up the process, so they could be taken down before the Sabbath…

I’ve read descriptions like this of crucifixion. It is as horrible as any other type of torture. My understanding is that Jesus was stabbed in the side to speed up his death, so that he’d bleed to death and/or die of internal injuries. This was I guess more humane then the alternative. Of course after the scourging he was hardly alive anyway.

Burning is faster; but it was still hardly the most humane punishment possible. What was the problem with hanging to break the neck or beheading? Neither requires electric-chair levels of technology.

You will need to ask this question of those people who made the decisions in those days. I cannot answer this. Look at the ingenious ways that the English had to torture people to death… cutting out their insides while they are alive, cutting off and burning the sex organs of men… while alive… it goes on and on. How about the Romans feeding people to lions… that was real inventive.

I believe that the death sentences were carried out with an intent to cause physical pain… to punish in this world before passing to the next. So while burning was considered more humane then say crucifixion it still contained that element of torture that some wanted to prescribe. So there was torture, but for a shorter period of time.

In those days ( and in some countries of today even) people ruled through fear… that is why executions were public events. The rulers wanted people to be horrified by what they saw… to prevent others from committing what ever wrong the execute had committed.

If it were left up to me to decide how to execute a person… we’ll I’d probably not execute them. Maybe the worst of murderers etc, I could condemn to execution… and then it would be by giving them enough drugs so that they did not know what was happening … and giving a lethal dose of something to end it. Sort of like when my poor old dog was dying of horrific cancer and I had to have him put under. I sat with him through it… It was all over in a minute or so.

In my way of thinking, the knowledge that he/she will be put to death is punishment enough. Physical pain does nothing to cleans a soul of horrific sins.

People are still barbaric; many posts in this very thread indicate that those impulses are alive and well.

I’ve been thinking about the responses on this thread… I’m not sure that anyone here really believe that burning heretics was right… instead I think people are trying to explain how it was seen as a form of treason which is typically punished by death even today.

I’ve been trying to find info on the different death sentences to see what the accused did besides just having different thoughts. Thoughts are to be fought with counter discussions and education.

Look at our society today. We are starting to punish people for their thoughts and their speech… recently two high school girls were arrested for handing about anti-gay literature in a school parking lot. They have been arrested as face years in prison if convicted. How is this correct? How is this any more correct then the church imprisoning heretics. I totally disagree with what the girls did … The incident should be used as a chance to educate the girls in some things. But no, thought and speech suppression are not legal in the USA if a person expresses thoughts/speech that do not agree with some popular way of thinking.

IMHO, excommunication is the proper action to take with someone who is a serious heretic. They are simply no longer part of the Church.

The secular state of course was interested in preserving their own authority and punishing actual crimes. I have no problem really with those who committed crimes being punished by death… for example any Cathars who participated in the assisted suicides are murders IMO. They needed to be dealt with. The Cathers who killed clergy too.

Here were other heretical groups who committed atrocities in the name of their movements. They were simply criminals using religion as an excuse for their crimes.

Yes some people are still barbaric… the world over. It’s sad. But if we don’t talk about these issues then it will continue.

 

[Mirdath]

I’ve read descriptions like this of crucifixion. It is as horrible as any other type of torture. My understanding is that Jesus was stabbed in the side to speed up his death, so that he’d bleed to death and/or die of internal injuries. This was I guess more humane then the alternative. Of course after the scourging he was hardly alive anyway.

Jesus was already dead; the soldier stabbed him just to see if he was still alive. Dismas and Gestas had not ‘given up the ghost’ as Jesus did after he said ‘It is finished’.

I believe that the death sentences were carried out with an intent to cause physical pain… to punish in this world before passing to the next. So while burning was considered more humane then say crucifixion it still contained that element of torture that some wanted to prescribe. So there was torture, but for a shorter period of time.

In those days ( and in some countries of today even) people ruled through fear… that is why executions were public events. The rulers wanted people to be horrified by what they saw… to prevent others from committing what ever wrong the execute had committed.

But is this morally justifiable? Is tormenting anyone for any reason, let alone differences in religious belief, a moral good or even neutral, ever?

Is the reputation of the Catholic Church as an utterly blameless and good institution so important that its adherents will ignore and rewrite history and its own teachings to continue believing in that blamelessness?

I’ve been thinking about the responses on this thread… I’m not sure that anyone here really believe that burning heretics was right… instead I think people are trying to explain how it was seen as a form of treason which is typically punished by death even today.

Many here are saying ‘yeah, it was right and good and just’. In other threads on similar subjects, the feeling I’ve gotten is one of ‘hoo-rah, we sure showed those heretics back in the day!’

I’ve been trying to find info on the different death sentences to see what the accused did besides just having different thoughts. Thoughts are to be fought with counter discussions and education.

They didn’t shut up when told to. There was no recognized right to free speech then.

That was, in many if not most cases, their only crime: talking.

They were simply criminals using religion as an excuse for their crimes.

The same could be said of the Catholic torturers and murderers. They just got away with it. It doesn’t matter whose flag these acts are or were committed under: they’re evil.

 

[mercygate]

I’m sorry to hear of your misfortune. Hope you have recovered well from it by now. My heart goes out to you.

What people are talking about is not the reality of burning but instead the perception of people at the time. Roman law used to use crucifixion to punish heretics. They later changed to burning because they believed that burning was less cruel the crucifixion.

Their justification was that crucifixion could take days to kill a person while they were in agony the entire time. Burning killed the person in minutes. So they assumed less suffering.

People were barbaric in those days. Burning was used as the punishment for several crimes.

I doubt anyone here actually believes that burning a person alive is humane at all.

Indeed, nor does anybody believe that burning heretics should be restored as a means of dealing with the problem. The attempt has been to place the burning of heretics into its historical context. I remind you again: stealing a sheep was punishable by death. Context, context, context.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Indeed, nor does anybody believe that burning heretics should be restored as a means of dealing with the problem. The attempt has been to place the burning of heretics into its historical context. I remind you again: stealing a sheep was punishable by death. Context, context, context.

Yes context is everything.
And why was stealing a sheep punishable by death? For the same reason that stealing cattle and horses were punishable by death in the American west. Because if you steal them, you have stolen a families means of feeding itself. It was serious. Today if our car is stolen our insurance replaces it. In medieval time, steal a mans sheep and his family cannot eat. There was no insurance to cover the loss. It was deadly serious.
It is not that morality is relative. It is that the morality of situation change as society changes as in the situation of the stolen sheep above.
Another point is not that morality changes, but that humans mature. We were given the laws a long time ago. We humans still have not matured to a point that we can fully grasp them. The people of the middle ages truly believed that burning people to death was just. Yes even the Catholic Clergy. They were not as mature a society as we are today…. And believe me we have a long way to go still.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Is the reputation of the Catholic Church as an utterly blameless and good institution so important that its adherents will ignore and rewrite history and its own teachings to continue believing in that blamelessness?

People have a hard time with understanding when Catholics say that the Church is infallible. It only means that the religion is… its sort of like saying that the Bible is infallible. I doubt there are many Christians who would disagree that the Bible is infallible.

That is basically the part of the faith that we are calling infallible.

Some Catholics do not realize how limited the infallibility is. This leads some to blindly support anything the Church does. That’s not right.

The flaws are with us, the humans. There are many many things done by the leaders of the Church and clergy that were in error… these were case of the humans doing wrong.

For example the early inquisitions did not allow torture. It was totally forbidden. Then a few popes later we had a pope or two who allowed torture… But even they had pangs of humanity on the issue and stated that it was only allowed once in a case. This pope was in error. Then as people will, some inquisitionist became ‘creative’ and decided that the one instance of torture could be continued over different periods of them. Obviously that inquisitioner was wrong in that case… wrong to torture to begin with and wrong to continue it. So then the Pope tightened it up saying that torture was allowed for only 15 minutes. Again the Pope is wrong… torture is not ok. But even with torture being allowed, what was allowed was very limited. Most of the torture devices that we hear of were not used by the Church. Just was not done. But people just keep perpetuating the lies because it suits their agenda.

The teaching of the Church did not lead to these errors…. It was human error in not following the teachings of the Church. It is the same with the Protestants… it was not the infallible teachings of the Bible that led them to burn tens of thousands of witches or to burn/disembowel/torture tens of thousands of Catholics and other they considered heretics… it was their human error. What they did was in direct defiance of the Bible.

I don’t think I‘ve ever heard a protestant admit to or take historical responsibility for the murderous and other horrific acts of their ancestors. At least Catholics admit to what occurred even if a few Catholics mistakenly think that nothing the chruch does can be wrong.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Is the reputation of the Catholic Church as an utterly blameless and good institution so important that its adherents will ignore and rewrite history and its own teachings to continue believing in that blamelessness?

Basically, remember that the vast majority of the those who were investigated in the inquisition were neither tortured nor physically harmed. Most were treated fairly, had a proper trial with plenty of opportunity to defend themselves. Most people were absolved of all charges. Fr. Gui investigated 5000 people. He never used any torture. His office of inquisition was before torture was approved. Of the 5000, he prosecuted 930… So 4,070 were acquitted of any wrong doing. Of those 4,070 about 300 were imprisoned with over half of those let go later. 42 of them were executed. It is only the 42 cases that fall into the group you are protesting… as I’ve stated several times we (here on this forum) seem to have no idea what their crimes were… did they do something besides hold heretical views? When we have an inqusitioner who seemed to have been pretty fair to most of 5000 people… I’m not going to assume that he turned into a monster for those 42. Not until I know the more about the cases.

Is the reputation of the Catholic Church as an utterly blameless and good institution so important that its adherents will ignore and rewrite history and its own teachings to continue believing in that blamelessness?

I cannot speak for other Catholics on this, but only for myself. I’m trying to find out the truth. The problem is that most of what we thought we knew as the history of things like the inquisitions are mostly a pack of lies. Look at Foxes Book of Martys. It is for the most part a collection of gossip and hysteria. But for centuries it was taken as the lateral truth. In recent decades historians have been doing what should have been done to start with… look at the actual records of that time.
As a kid I was taught that the inquisition just grabbed people, tortured them and burned people by the hundreds of thousands. This apparently is not true. The number now give, by secular historians is 3000-5000 people were killed by the Catholic Inquisition from the 1100’s to the 1700’s. This is not Catholics distorting the truth. These are people who are finally coming up with the truth after how many centuries of people telling grotesque lies for the sole purpose of destroying the Catholic Church. And the very people who made up these lies were killing, burning, persecuting, etc as much or more.
I, and most Catholics I know have no problems admitting when church clergy were wrong. What we have a problem with are the distortions and lies passed around by Protestants in their attempt to destroy Catholicism at any cost.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Many here are saying ‘yeah, it was right and good and just’. In other threads on similar subjects, the feeling I’ve gotten is one of ‘hoo-rah, we sure showed those heretics back in the day!’

I’ve never heard a Catholic with that attitude…. Tell me do the protestants have that same attitude above those they burned, drowned and chopped up in peaces? I do know many protestants who believe that their ancestors were absolutely justified in burning thousands of Catholics. I know that most protestants are proud of the events that led to those deaths and persecutions. They make no bones about it.

They didn’t shut up when told to. There was no recognized right to free speech then.
That was, in many if not most cases, their only crime: talking.
The same could be said of the Catholic torturers and murderers. They just got away with it. It doesn’t matter whose flag these acts are or were committed under: they’re evil.

You are right that the idea of free speech is a new one. It was a new fangled idea invented in American. You blame the lack of free speech laws on the Catholic Church? There was no concept of free speech in the Protestant countries for a long time either. They were notorious for killing anyone who spoke out even on religious issues. Dare anyone protest the protestants and it was a certain death sentence. For a long time just being a Catholic in England was a death sentence… breathing air was apparently the crime.
You are wrong that in the cases where people were executed talking was not their only crime. There have always been Catholics who have challenge the Church. The Church has a system for handling these this, it has often led to changes in the church after the topic was discussed and handled. You are describing here the distorted view of the inquisition that has been passed down through history… compiled from rumors.
Most Catholics will not engage in conversation with those who are toxically anti-Catholic. Why should we? When these people preach the lies of Foxes and others who spread lies, distortions and conspiracy theories why should we give them the time of day. Historians, secular historians who pick no sides, have already debunked most of Foxes, etc.
What you will find is that when people start their anti-Catholic ****, many Catholics will answer that yep the Church was right. End of discussion. You and other anti-Catholics would not believe anything but the propaganda you spout. So why bother. You’re happy hating Catholics. Who are we to take away the fun derived from it?