Was the burning of heretics justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
whatevergirl said:
Why not prison, if the risk was this high. I don’t know why extermination was the answer, even for a small percentage…which would leave one thinking…why exterminate such a small percentage? Was this small percentage that dangerous to everyday society? It troubles me that the RCC even has to defend itself with this history.
Click to expand...
Support prisoners when families were impoverished, illiterate and destitute?

The fact that this country can levy a tax to pay to house the incarcerated from nearly birth to death is a very new and definate luxury for any criminal. But taxing society of that time to pay for incarceration of prisoners who were shown to be completely resolved in their intent to undermine sovereign rule- seems foolish, and quite impossible. Kinda like getting blood from a turnip.

Usually when one has questions such as the ones you pose above, one does some investigation prior to forming a definite opinion.

Perhaps they WERE dangerous to medievial society as defined by that medieval society. (who better to define that then the people of the time?)
 
rr1213 said:
That’s good at least. Serously. Reading some posts by some posters in this thread and elsewhere in these forums would cause me to worry about my life and limb if I lived in a Catholic-ruled country that governed in conformity with the fantasies of aforesaid posters. 😉
Click to expand...
Only if you claimed to be Catholic then went around preaching your own Gospel when it was against the law. (BTW The Catholic Church didn’t rule these countries- monarchs did.) And as indicated by Henry VIII when the monarch decides to proclaim heresy… not much the Church does about it other than declare it in error and attempt to keep Catholic teaching clean.
 
Mirdath posted:
‘Kill them all! God will know his own!’.

What can one do but weep for the victims of such brutality?

Also, the plank is in your eye, the speck in the other’s. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Sorry Mirdath but I do not agree with your premise that 'the Catholic Church professes violence heaped upon violence.

As for the plank, what I said I meant.
 
Mirdath said:
In this case, a representative of Catholicism.

A true follower of Jesus in faith, charity, and humility alike, I see.
Click to expand...
This is really starting to get old.

Care to back up your claim? Didn’t see anyone say that here.
 
There are a couple of things that still stick in my head…

#1. IF the Church and the State were two different and separate entities then how could the heretics of the time be executed for treason against their country?

#2. I keep going back to the woman who was going to be stoned to death because she had been caught in the midst of committing adultry. They brought her to Jesus as a test and He said “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” Now, at the time the way society and the custom worked the woman would have been stoned because THAT was the way things were. By our standards today this punishment was extreme and horrible but back then it was the way things were. But instead of advocating it because that was the way things worked Jesus took the non-violent road. IF the catholic church is the one that He began why wouldn’t it take on His example?
 
Singinbeauty said:
#2. I keep going back to the woman who was going to be stoned to death because she had been caught in the midst of committing adultry. They brought her to Jesus as a test and He said “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” Now, at the time the way society and the custom worked the woman would have been stoned because THAT was the way things were. By our standards today this punishment was extreme and horrible but back then it was the way things were. But instead of advocating it because that was the way things worked Jesus took the non-violent road. IF the catholic church is the one that He began why wouldn’t it take on His example?
Click to expand...
Interesting example, since, as Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, then you are faced with more than changing social custom, you are choosing which of the same God’s teachings you follow—the one in Leviticus 20 that says stoning is the thing to do or the one in John where Jesus adds on the additional requirement that punishers be without sin?

Mirdath’s argument hinges on the repeated claim of Catholics (and many other Christians) on this board that the morality of an action (and morals are entirely about actions) is absolute and do not change with changes in societal custom. If God says in that stoning someone for a specific transgression is moral (no loopholes in the statement), and indeed specifically commanded, but then later changes that and basically says the opposite, is that an example of God showing moral relativism?
 
Shiann said:
Only if you claimed to be Catholic then went around preaching your own Gospel when it was against the law.
Click to expand...
So…it’s your premise that back then – and even now in our hypothetical Catholic State – that all I would have to do is proclaim that I am Protestant, not Catholic, and I’d be home free? Somehow, I just don’t think that is how it works…

Anyway this is getting off topic. I still wish we had an unambiguous buy-in from all of our Catholic posters in this thread that it is wrong to burn people alive at the stake because of their religious beliefs. Doesn’t seem to be much to ask, but unfortunately I don’t think we’ll get that agreement. With all of the expanations, rationalizations and revisionist thinking, too many folk seem to think it’s just fine. It isn’t just fine and it doesn’t matter who is lighting the flames. Sayonara for now…
 
Shiann said:
Support prisoners when families were impoverished, illiterate and destitute?

The fact that this country can levy a tax to pay to house the incarcerated from nearly birth to death is a very new and definate luxury for any criminal. But taxing society of that time to pay for incarceration of prisoners who were shown to be completely resolved in their intent to undermine sovereign rule- seems foolish, and quite impossible. Kinda like getting blood from a turnip.

Usually when one has questions such as the ones you pose above, one does some investigation prior to forming a definite opinion.

Perhaps they WERE dangerous to medievial society as defined by that medieval society. (who better to define that then the people of the time?)
Click to expand...
What you are saying can really create a slippery slope. We can agree to disagree on this one.
 
Sixtus said:
Mirdath posted:

I cannot imagine what religion would advocate ‘KILL THEM ALL!’ Maybe Mirdath could elaborate 😛

Sorry Mirdath but I do not agree with your premise that 'the Catholic Church professes violence heaped upon violence.

As for the plank, what I said I meant.
Click to expand...
I’m leaning towards agreement with Sixtus. Mankind has made a ton of errors…sins, frankly. Killing people is wrong. Pope JP2 saw it fit for very minor situations…it’s a modern view, but it’s the right view.
 
rr1213 said:
So…it’s your premise that back then – and even now in our hypothetical Catholic State – that all I would have to do is proclaim that I am Protestant, not Catholic, and I’d be home free? Somehow, I just don’t think that is how it works…

Anyway this is getting off topic. I still wish we had an unambiguous buy-in from all of our Catholic posters in this thread that it is wrong to burn people alive at the stake because of their religious beliefs. Doesn’t seem to be much to ask, but unfortunately I don’t think we’ll get that agreement. With all of the expanations, rationalizations and revisionist thinking, too many folk seem to think it’s just fine. It isn’t just fine and it doesn’t matter who is lighting the flames. Sayonara for now…
Click to expand...
It is not just fine…you have my vote as a devout Catholic against killing people for not believing what we believe. Back then, and now. I can’t believe this thread is going on and on like this…and then, do we turn around to our Muslim neighbors and claim how peaceful we are? LOL

You can’t have it both ways…You can not say that you defend the heretics’ killings, yet are also for peace. It sort of looks hypocritical.:o
 
whatevergirl said:
It is not just fine…you have my vote as a devout Catholic against killing people for not believing what we believe. Back then, and now. I can’t believe this thread is going on and on like this…and then, do we turn around to our Muslim neighbors and claim how peaceful we are? LOL

You can’t have it both ways…You can not say that you defend the heretics’ killings, yet are also for peace. It sort of looks hypocritical.:o
Click to expand...
I think that you are missing the point here… no one is advocating killing anyone based on their beliefs alone. The only cases where anyone is advocating the possibility of a death sentence is with a dangerous person who happens to be a heretic.

The situation someone mentioned about the society not having the recourses to jail a person for life and properly take care of them. This is very real. I’ve read that in early nomadic societies… like the hebrews and arabs, they could not (name removed by moderator)rison a person for life, they lived in tents and moved constantly. And they hardly had enough to eat for themselvs.
 
whatevergirl said:
It is not just fine…you have my vote as a devout Catholic against killing people for not believing what we believe. Back then, and now. I can’t believe this thread is going on and on like this…and then, do we turn around to our Muslim neighbors and claim how peaceful we are? LOL

You can’t have it both ways…You can not say that you defend the heretics’ killings, yet are also for peace. It sort of looks hypocritical.:o
Click to expand...
Another question, if killing is wrong in all cases why did God order the Jews to exterminate entire tribes. And why did He give laws that mandated death penalties?
 
BelFarfalla said:
I think that you are missing the point here… no one is advocating killing anyone based on their beliefs alone. The only cases where anyone is advocating the possibility of a death sentence is with a dangerous person who happens to be a heretic.

The situation someone mentioned about the society not having the recourses to jail a person for life and properly take care of them. This is very real. I’ve read that in early nomadic societies… like the hebrews and arabs, they could not (name removed by moderator)rison a person for life, they lived in tents and moved constantly. And they hardly had enough to eat for themselvs.
Click to expand...
ah ha! Ok…see, I’m easy. I get it now. I still respectfully disagree…lol…but, your post caused a lightbulb to go off…:blushing:
 
BelFarfalla said:
Another question, if killing is wrong in all cases why did God order the Jews to exterminate entire tribes. And why did He give laws that mandated death penalties?
Click to expand...
I have this in a notebook to ask Him someday. Hopefully, He won’t be too terribly busy to answer my multitude of questions I have for him.

Regarding your post, though…perhaps it was looked at as defense…not purposeful, arrogant extermination, as in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, for example.
 
whatevergirl said:
I have this in a notebook to ask Him someday. Hopefully, He won’t be too terribly busy to answer my multitude of questions I have for him.

Regarding your post, though…perhaps it was looked at as defense…not purposeful, arrogant extermination, as in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, for example.
Click to expand...
Bingo…
 
BelFarfalla said:
Bingo…
Click to expand...
ok…ok…why can’t you other people explain like BelFarfalla?? ha…kidding. Maybe I was not willing to listen too. :whistle:

I see the point here…although, it’s sad that so much blood has been shed because of man’s perceptions and pride…no??
 
Singinbeauty said:
There are a couple of things that still stick in my head…

#1. IF the Church and the State were two different and separate entities then how could the heretics of the time be executed for treason against their country?
Click to expand...
When a nation decays morally, it is destined to be destroyed (or taken over). This is a definate lesson repeated in all of history. Certainly that a ruler decides to accept and uphold certain religious laws doesn’t necessarily mean the Church is ruling that country. With that said, it is also the case that rulers often sought wisdom and guidance from the Church. So to say they were completely seperate is disengenuous… They were more as partners with the ruler being the ultimate culpable authority.
#2. I keep going back to the woman who was going to be stoned to death because she had been caught in the midst of committing adultry. They brought her to Jesus as a test and He said “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” Now, at the time the way society and the custom worked the woman would have been stoned because THAT was the way things were. By our standards today this punishment was extreme and horrible but back then it was the way things were. But instead of advocating it because that was the way things worked Jesus took the non-violent road. IF the catholic church is the one that He began why wouldn’t it take on His example?
Click to expand...
What KarenNC said 👍
 
rr1213 said:
So…it’s your premise that back then – and even now in our hypothetical Catholic State – that all I would have to do is proclaim that I am Protestant, not Catholic, and I’d be home free? Somehow, I just don’t think that is how it works…
Click to expand...
I have shown evidence that this is exactly what the Church and the ‘state’ supported.
Anyway this is getting off topic.
Click to expand...
This is not off topic. The whole question is- was the practice justified. Catholics here have repeatedly said it was not a practice that should be taken today. But given the circumstances of the time- a society had a right and obligation to defend itself. Certainly many people of the time (who were not evil or dishonest or cruel) determined the threat of heresy was that grave of an issue.
I still wish we had an unambiguous buy-in from all of our Catholic posters in this thread that it is wrong to burn people alive at the stake because of their religious beliefs. Doesn’t seem to be much to ask, but unfortunately I don’t think we’ll get that agreement. With all of the expanations, rationalizations and revisionist thinking, too many folk seem to think it’s just fine. It isn’t just fine and it doesn’t matter who is lighting the flames. Sayonara for now…
Click to expand...
I’m not sure, but I’ve not seen any posters advocate burning at the stake. The question wasn’t “should we do it?”, the question was “was it justified at the time?”. I do not advocate any of the atrocities that mankind has promulgated on one another. Peace should always be sought. I believe from my studies of the time that Peace was the goal and methodology of the Church (given the limitations of living in the middle ages).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top