Was the burning of heretics justified?

[Mirdath]

So the death total was not 20,000 but half that. And most of the deaths were by enraged servant boys who mob attacked the city after one of the crusade soldiers was killed and dismembered by people from another city.

Yes, Arnaud-Amaury was not the best at arithmetic; I doubt there’s any kind of exact figure as to how many the boys killed and how many the official Crusaders killed. It doesn’t matter: the episode as a whole reflects rather poorly on the Crusade itself, wouldn’t you agree?

What do you think of the passage from Arnaud-Amaury’s letter? It is that that I am seeking to make a point of, not whether or not the papal legate could count. He noted twenty thousand dead, innocent and questionably guilty alike, and gloried in it; by Catholic teaching, does this not make him culpable to the same degree as if he were responsible for all twenty thousand?

BelFarfalla:

Today anyone who followed some (not all) of the Cathar beliefs would indeed be punished. Any Cathar today who participated in the ritual assisted suicides and the killing of babies to release their souls would indeed be seriously punished today… some executed depending of the jurisdiction.

Can you provide a source for this ridiculous and so far undocumented accusation – preferably an unbiased, detached reporter? Until I see such evidence, I’ll stick to my claim that it is blood libel and completely uncharacteristic of Cathar belief.

 

[Ahimsa]

As an area become predominately Cathar, they put pressure on people who join and were entagonistic and even violent to those who would not.

Violent in what way?

Actually Cathars who truly believed their doctrine did not engage in things like marriage and sex… they were considered sinful as they were of the physical world and produced babies where are human souls trapped in animal bodies… a fate worse then death.

Well, I know plenty of people who don’t engage in sex or marriage. But you seem to be implying that Cathars actually killed babies? Do you have any reliable sources that support this idea? (I mean, it reminds me of the accusations against Jews in the Middle Ages.)

 

[BelFarfalla]

…

But if the civil authorities deemed that execution was the ‘just dessert’ then I think they should have been more compassionate and chosen a quicker more humane method. To subject someone to being burnt alive is to aweful to contemplate.

I think that burning was chosen because it was relatively quick but gave a good show to deter others. Remember that these were generally public exactions. There are only two reasons to hold public executions… for the record so that people know that the exaction occurred… and to literally fill people with fear to keep them from following the same course.

An quiet lethal injection does not do the trick. I sat with my dog when we had to have him put down… it was so peaceful.

But burning … again it’s quite a show and a deterrent.

 

[Shiann]

One question: did the Cathars force people to become Cathar, or did people become Cathar pretty much of their own volition?

Another question: how many Cathars were actually of the ‘elect’, and how many were lay-people engaging in normal, every-day activities (marriage, sex, work, etc.)?

Man, they taught, is a living contradiction. Hence, the liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. Generation was abhorred by the Albigenses even in the animal kingdom. Consequently, abstention from all animal food, except fish, was enjoined. Their belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls, the result of their logical rejection of purgatory, furnishes another explanation for the same abstinence. To this practice they added long and rigorous fasts. The necessity of absolute fidelity to the sect was strongly inculcated.

The members of the sect were divided into two classes: The “perfect” (perfecti) and the mere “believers” (credentes). The “perfect” were those who had submitted to the initiation-rite (consolamentum). They were few in number and were alone bound to the observance of the above-described rigid moral law. While the female members of this class did not travel, the men went, by twos, from place to place, performing the ceremony of initiation. The only bond that attached the “believers” to Albigensianism was the promise to receive the consolamentum before death… If the illness did not end fatally, starvation or poison prevented rather frequently subsequent moral transgressions.

newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

Last question: what if Cathars were to re-appear in Europe?

There are already practicing Cathars.

Would the state have the duty/right/obligation to execute them?

Is it unlawful for a person to be a Cathar in said state?

 

[fix]

This is exactly what I mean. Instead of taking the invitation to condemn all violence directed towards people on account of their religious faith you have, instead, started the rationalization process anew.

It is not rationalization to view history as it actually unfolded rather than foist our prejudices onto it.

Violence is not an accurate way to describe the state using its authority to govern. Is it violence when the police today subdue a dangerous criminal?

If the State, or the Church, or a combination of the two, prosecute and punish people because of their religious faith then…no…it is not just.

Yes, but that too is not accurate. The state was not simply punishing some person for believing an error. They were protecting the population from criminals who would cause harm.

Would you be happy if your country threw you into jail because you are Catholic and wouldn’t denounce your faith?

How is that analogous to the situation in the middle ages?

Somehow I don’t think it would matter beans to you if your beliefs, and failure to renounce them, were simply characterized as being “treason” instead of “heresy”. That happened to Catholics in Anglican England at times you know.

Abuses happen to day, yet do you call the American justice system unjust?

It wasn’t right for my religious ancestors to do it and it wasn’t right for yours to do it either.

Abuse was wrong. Capital punishment for treason at that time was not always unjust.

 

[Shiann]

Yes, Arnaud-Amaury was not the best at arithmetic; I doubt there’s any kind of exact figure as to how many the boys killed and how many the official Crusaders killed. It doesn’t matter: the episode as a whole reflects rather poorly on the Crusade itself, wouldn’t you agree?

It might reflect poorly on the man, but to say an entire crusade is besmirched is a stretch.

What do you think of the passage from Arnaud-Amaury’s letter? It is that that I am seeking to make a point of, not whether or not the papal legate could count. He noted twenty thousand dead, innocent and questionably guilty alike, and gloried in it; by Catholic teaching, does this not make him culpable to the same degree as if he were responsible for all twenty thousand?

That he gloried in the deaths makes him a bad man, but until you have a “way to go Arnaud!” from Innocent III, it’s another stretch to say it makes him and the Church culpable for the deaths of 10,000 more people. As it stands now, by that point Innocent III had attempted to pull back the reigns of those who gave their services to the crusades.

At the most it sounds like typical psychological mob mentality. And thousands of people ended up dying and murdering eachother because of it. People took the ‘law’ into their own hands so to speak.

Can you provide a source for this ridiculous and so far undocumented accusation – preferably an unbiased, detached reporter? Until I see such evidence, I’ll stick to my claim that it is blood libel and completely uncharacteristic of Cathar belief.

I provided one above.

 

[Shiann]

Violent in what way?

Well, I know plenty of people who don’t engage in sex or marriage. But you seem to be implying that Cathars actually killed babies? Do you have any reliable sources that support this idea? (I mean, it reminds me of the accusations against Jews in the Middle Ages.)

Not sure I’ve ever read anything that they killed babies, but they were not against suicide or assisted death.

 

[Ahimsa]

To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation).

Did this suicide occur in specific contexts? Say, for instance, when one had a fatal disease? Or was suicide recommended for all “perfecti”, whether ill or not? (It would seem that if suicide were for all “perfecti”, the Cathars would have had a hard time merely surviving.)

The only bond that attached the “believers” to Albigensianism was the promise to receive the consolamentum before death… If the illness did not end fatally, starvation or poison prevented rather frequently subsequent moral transgressions.

Was starvation or poisoning something forced upon a person, or did they consciously choose it in the context of a probably imminent death?

 

[Ahimsa]

Not sure I’ve ever read anything that they killed babies, but they were not against suicide or assisted death.

OK, but ‘suicide’ in what context? Fatal illness? Depression? Loss of job?

 

[rr1213]

what if Cathars were to re-appear in Europe? Would the state have the duty/right/obligation to execute them?

Is it unlawful for a person to be a Cathar in said state?

You have got to be kidding me. Is that all that would be determinative of the question in your mind…whether the Cathar faith was illegal in a particular country? It’s just a matter of who controls the government and whose ox is being gored? No. A state is tyrannical if it persecutes people because of their faith. NO state – Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Islamic or Atheist-- has the right to violate fundamental human rights such as freedom of religion.

 

[Shiann]

You have got to be kidding me. Is that all that would be determinative of the question in your mind…whether the Cathar faith was illegal in a particular country? It’s just a matter of who controls the government and whose ox is being gored? No. A state is tyrannical if it persecutes people because of their faith. NO state – Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Islamic or Atheist-- has the right to violate fundamental human rights such as freedom of religion.

silly question silly answer.

 

[Shiann]

Did this suicide occur in specific contexts? Say, for instance, when one had a fatal disease? Or was suicide recommended for all “perfecti”, whether ill or not? (It would seem that if suicide were for all “perfecti”, the Cathars would have had a hard time merely surviving.)

Was starvation or poisoning something forced upon a person, or did they consciously choose it in the context of a probably imminent death?

The encouragement of suicide or assisted death for any reason limits the basic human right to life.

 

[Mirdath]

No, suicide was not a requirement for perfecti, and the endura was generally performed (by refusal of food and drink) by those who were terminally ill. It was seen as laudable, since they were attempting to transcend their earthly pain by extreme fasting and meditation, and merciful since their suffering would be shorter. And it was hardly common practice, or a casual matter, but a deeply personal endeavor between a person and their deity, after much contemplation and counseling.

And if that is a violation of one’s ‘right to life,’ then what of the slaughter wrought upon them, without their consent? How did or does such a practice threaten anyone else? Fire and the sword were the answer?

 

[Mirdath]

It might reflect poorly on the man, but to say an entire crusade is besmirched is a stretch.

How so? It’s certainly not an auspicious start.

That he gloried in the deaths makes him a bad man, but until you have a “way to go Arnaud!” from Innocent III, it’s another stretch to say it makes him and the Church culpable for the deaths of 10,000 more people. As it stands now, by that point Innocent III had attempted to pull back the reigns of those who gave their services to the crusades.

Had Innocent truly ‘pulled back the reins’, Arnaud would not have gone on to lead the Catholic armies at Carcasonne and Minerve. Perhaps not ‘way to go!’ but certainly ‘good enough!’.

I provided one above.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, I’ve found, is not especially given to journalistic detachment. And in any case, I see nothing about killing babies in the linked article.

BelFarfalla mentioned killing infants. I await reliable sources to back this up.

 

[Shiann]

No, suicide was not a requirement for perfecti, and the endura was generally performed (by refusal of food and drink) by those who were terminally ill. It was seen as laudable, since they were attempting to transcend their earthly pain by extreme fasting and meditation, and merciful since their suffering would be shorter. And it was hardly common practice, or a casual matter, but a deeply personal endeavor between a person and their deity, after much contemplation and counseling.

And if that is a violation of one’s ‘right to life,’ then what of the slaughter wrought upon them, without their consent? How did or does such a practice threaten anyone else? Fire and the sword were the answer?

It was treason espouse and promote a heretical religion. It was treason because the ruling bodies decided that the tennets of the heretical religion were such that it could be disasterous to the people and their welfare if the philosophy was allowed to spread.

Those that were accused were not violated without their consent. They were counseled and educated and given an opportunity to choose, which was quite an advancement in justice for the middle ages.

 

[rr1213]

silly question silly answer.

There are Christians in Saudi Arabia and China, as well as numerous other places in the world today, who would think differently. Religioius freedom and freedom from persecution on account of your faith is not a laughing matter.

 

[rr1213]

It was treason espouse and promote a heretical religion. It was treason because the ruling bodies decided that the tennets of the heretical religion were such that it could be disasterous to the people and their welfare if the philosophy was allowed to spread.

Do think today that it should be treason in any nation on earth for espousing and promoting a faith that the religious authorities and/or the state believe to be heretical? Yes or no?

 

[Mirdath]

Those that were accused were not violated without their consent. They were counseled and educated and given an opportunity to choose, which was quite an advancement in justice for the middle ages.

What? Tell that to the nine thousand people, Cathars and Catholics alike, who were slaughtered at Beziers.

 

[Shiann]

How so? It’s certainly not an auspicious start.

Because it is just as likely to be an example of one man glory seeking… not a cooperative communication from a representative of the Church and a Church leader about how they had a sucessful campaign.

Had Innocent truly ‘pulled back the reins’, Arnaud would not have gone on to lead the Catholic armies at Carcasonne and Minerve. Perhaps not ‘way to go!’ but certainly ‘good enough!’.

That’s my point, he failed at pulling back the reigns.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, I’ve found, is not especially given to journalistic detachment. And in any case, I see nothing about killing babies in the linked article.

BelFarfalla mentioned killing infants. I await reliable sources to back this up.

As do I.

 

[Shiann]

There are Christians in Saudi Arabia and China, as well as numerous other places in the world today, who would think differently. Religioius freedom and freedom from persecution on account of your faith is not a laughing matter.

You and others continue to erroneously interject issues of modern justice into a debate about an historical event.

Which in the context of this debate… silly question, silly answer.