When did executing heretics become immoral?

[phil19034]

Such ‘doctrines’ and ‘commandments’ of men which many might take as God’s Law(s) can lead many astray from serving The True and Living God

Let’s not use the words doctrine and commandment because that may confuse people.

In the Church, there are no “doctrines or commandments of men.” There are only prudential judgments of men and disciplines.

God bless

 

[MichaelP3]

I said

previously that I think burning was wrong in hindsight and I would never

support such a cruel punishment.

But I also understand why society used burning, because it was an effective

deterrent, but it was an unjust punishment.

It was a misbalance of justice and deterrent, and obviously lacked all

But this doesn’t do it for me. Simply saying burning was effective but also “unjust” is not an answer. Think of all the poor people (some Heritics; some just a pawn in the system) had to endure. Burning is a real thing that is atrocious that we all condemn whoever does it today. It is the most cruel thing possible in this earth. It simply doesn’t fly!

So trying to defend it just lacks being human. It’s easy today to try, but imagine standing there in front of a real human burning. I cringe when it happens in movies and I know it is not real.

So to defend it in any way just seems inhumane. You don’t even need to be Christian (let alone Catholic) to realise this is totally far flung from humanity and reality whoever you are, whatever the reasons.

I can live with arguments like it was the state and not the church. But some on here went further which is very sad.

This part in history needs a rejection no matter who you are! And if rejecting it is difficult because some pope said something well then that needs some more introspection.

Regards

 

[phil19034]

But this doesn’t do it for me. Simply saying burning was effective but also “unjust” is not an answer. Think of all the poor people (some Heritics; some just a pawn in the system) had to endure. Burning id a real thing that is atrocious that we all condemn whoever does it today. It is the most cruel thing possible in this earth. It simply doesn’t fly!

So trying to defend it just lacks being human. It’s easy today to try, but imagine standing there in front of a real human burning. I cringe when it happens in movies and I know it is not real.

So to defend it in any way just seems inhumane. You don’t even need to be Christian (let alone Catholic) to realise this is totally far flung from humanity whoever you are, whatever the reasons.

I can live with arguments like it was the state and not the church. But some one here went further which is very sad.

This part in history needs a rejection no matter who you are! And if rejecting it is difficult because some pope said something well then that needs some more introspection.

Regards

My friend, I think you are still missing my point. The burning of ANYONE was a cruel punishment that should have never popped into the minds of people of good will.

Such a death sentence was obviously created by a heartless and perhaps evil person, and it’s a sad fact of human history that people of good will allowed it to continue.

But part of learning from the mistakes of the past is to understand them. If we do not understand why people allowed them to continue, then we repeat the mistakes of the past.

And if we fail to understand their reasons, it could also allow us to move too far in the other direction.

Bishop Barron speaks about the need to balance both Mercy and the Law that we often screw up when we focus on one more than the other

Burning people alive happens when you focus too much on the law instead of mercy. However, you can also get into trouble when you focus too much on mercy and ignore the law.

My point… we need to learn from history so we can focus on best balancing the law (aka justice) with mercy.

God Bless

 

[MichaelP3]

However, you can also get into trouble when you focus too much on mercy and ignore the law.

My point… we need to learn from history so we can focus on best balancing the law (aka justice) with mercy.

I agree as a person who respects
lhistory that we really NEED to learn from it as I believe my point still stands!

Also can you explain the passage you provided? To focus too much on mercy and not the law (considering we were talking about people being burnt … ).

Side note: I also feel you miss my point. And forgive me when we are talking burning human beings, THE HUMANE POINT.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

However, you can also get into trouble when you focus too much on mercy and ignore the law.

My point… we need to learn from history so we can focus on best balancing the law (aka justice) with mercy.

I agree as a person who respects
lhistory that we really NEED to learn from it as I believe my point still stands!

Also can you explain the passage you provided? To focus too much on mercy and not the law (considering we were talking about people being burnt … ).

Side note: I also feel you miss my point. And forgive me when we are talking burning human beings, THE HUMANE POINT.

? Burning people alive is inhumane. Period. Anyone who thought it was just was wrong. But it’s important to understand why they felt it was just.

As far a focus too much on mercy and not the law, you should watch the video I posted from Bishop Barron. I won’t do him justice.

However, the root of my point was people took things too far by burning people in their desire to protect the law. If we don’t understand what their reasons were, we could be guilty of taking thing too far in the opposite direction, in the name of mercy.

You can’t have mercy without justice and you can’t have justice without mercy. Burning people is focusing on the law without mercy is scary because it leads to physical & spiritual death. While a world field of mercy without justice & the law is equally scary because it still leads to the spiritual death.

 

[MichaelP3]

But it’s important to understand why they felt it was just.

I really read your post and I actually have seen that video of Barron before.

This doesn’t fly for me. I am not going to sit and try to argue why ISIS could have been thinking they were just in doing what they were doing. There is no excuse except “I am sorry and please forgive me my grievous sin”. That is the answer. It is a stain on humanity and what we stand for.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But it’s important to understand why they felt it was just.

I really read your post and I actually have seen that video of Barron before.

This doesn’t fly for me. I am not going to sit and try to argue why ISIS could have been thinking they were just in doing what they were doing. There is no excuse except “I am sorry and please forgive me my grievous sin”. That is the answer. It is a stain on humanity and what we stand for.

ISIS is not made up of people of good will.

I said it’s important to understand why people of good will would allow such things to continue.

 

[MichaelP3]

I said it’s important to understand why people of good will would allow such things to continue

And I am prepared to say NO PERSON EVER OF ANY GOODWILL will burn someone! Maybe just my humane instinct. Including any Christian organisation.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

I said it’s important to understand why people of good will would allow such things to continue

And I am prepared to say NO PERSON EVER OF ANY GOODWILL will burn someone! Maybe just my humane instinct.

But that’s not what history teaches us. I’m not talking about the person who lit the torch, I’m talking about the person who watched and said nothing.

Throughout history, people of goodwill have closed their eyes, ears & mouths and did not stand up to evil or allowed evil to continue based on fear.

 

[MichaelP3]

But that’s not what history teaches us. I’m not talking about the person who lit the torch, I’m talking about the person who watched and said nothing.

Throughout history, people of goodwill have closed their eyes, ears & mouths and did not stand up to evil or allowed evil to continue based on fear.

Okay that is very true although I do not see any relevance?

 

[phil19034]

Okay that is very true although I do not see any relevance?

The point is why did they tolerate a horrendous act like burning someone alive? What were they afraid of?

Should we still fear what they were afraid of?

When implementing change (whether the law, religion, business, etc) it’s important to understand WHY something was put into place when making changes. That way, you don’t just correct something that needs to be fixed, but you also do not introduce new, unforeseen problems.

Burning people alive was an EXTREME reaction by society to societal issues at the time. But ignoring their fears could allow the very thing they feared (a Godless society) to come true.

This doesn’t mean we need to return to burning people - far from it - , but we do need to figure out a better way of balancing mercy and justice (law) because regardless of how advanced we think we are, we still haven’t figured out how to do properly balance Mercy and Justice. Until we do, we are only destined to repeat history.

Parting question: how long will it be before mobs start killing people for the “heresy” of vocally being Pro Life or believing that marriage is between one man & one woman for the creation of children, etc.?

 

[MichaelP3]

But ignoring their fears could allow the very thing they feared (a Godless society) to come true.

So you say burning was needed as it "could have created " a Godless society?

Even if that is not what you mean? Why not just say sorry ( not you personally but as a whole) for committing this most grevious act?

 

[ltwin]

The Papal States, officially the State of the Church (Italian: Stato della Chiesa, Italian pronunciation: ['stato 'della ki.'ɛza]; Latin: Status Ecclesiae), were territories in the Italian Peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 8th century until 1870.

Note that the official name for the Papal States was the “State of the Church”–literally its a country that belonged to the Catholic Church. The Church was the secular government.

If there was a policy to burn heretics in Rome, the buck stops with the Pope–who was the sovereign power in Rome.

 

[phil19034]

The Papal States, officially the State of the Church (Italian: Stato della Chiesa, Italian pronunciation: ['stato 'della ki.'ɛza]; Latin: Status Ecclesiae), were territories in the Italian Peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 8th century until 1870.

The Church was not the Secular government. But there was not separation of the diocese from the state.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But ignoring their fears could allow the very thing they feared (a Godless society) to come true.

So you say burning was needed as it "could have created " a Godless society?

Even if that is not what you mean? Why not just say sorry ( not you personally but as a whole) for committing this most grevious act?

Dude! NO, burning was NOT needed. The PEOPLE THOUGHT it was needed.

The HUMANS inside the Church thought it was needed. The but Mystical Body of Christ - which is The Church - never thought or taught it was needed.

And Pope John Paul II did apologize on behalf of all Christians for crimes committed by Christian people in the name of Christ.

 

[MichaelP3]

The Church was not the Secular government. But there was not separation of the diocese from the state.

This could be a valid point but it is being used to often for it to be taken seriously. " It is the people and not the Church " . There comes a time where that doesn’t hold anymore considering all that is going on.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

The Church was not the Secular government. But there was not separation of the diocese from the state.

This could be a valid point but it is being used to often for it to be taken seriously. " It is the people and not the Church " . There comes a time where that doesn’t hold anymore considering all that is going on.

the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ which has been alive for 2000 years. The Church is not the people, the people are part of the Church.

The Church never makes mistakes… but the people do.

 

[ltwin]

The Church was not the Secular government. But there was not separation of the diocese from the state.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states in the entry of States of the Church

Consists of the civil territory which for over 1000 years (754-1870) acknowledged the pope as temporal ruler. The expression “Patrimonium Sancti Petri” originally designated the landed possessions and revenues of various kinds that belonged to the Church of St. Peter at Rome. Until the middle of the eighth century this consisted wholly of private property, but the term was later applied to the States of the Church, and more particularly to the Duchy of Rome.

Definition of temporal: Relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular.

The Pope was the secular ruler of Rome and the rest of the Papal States. To deny this, is just sad.

 

[MichaelP3]

The HUMANS inside the Church thought it was needed. The but Mystical Body of Christ - which is The Church - never thought or taught it was needed.

And Pope John Paul II did apologize on behalf of all Christians for crimes committed by Christian people in the name of Christ.

Then why have this discussion? Bow your head and say that is not you or the Catholic Church. Nothing wrong with that.

BTW. I knew it wasn’t a Catholic belief.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

The Church was not the Secular government. But there was not separation of the diocese from the state.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states in the entry of States of the Church

Consists of the civil territory which for over 1000 years (754-1870) acknowledged the pope as temporal ruler. The expression “Patrimonium Sancti Petri” originally designated the landed possessions and revenues of various kinds that belonged to the Church of St. Peter at Rome. Until the middle of the eighth century this consisted wholly of private property, but the term was later applied to the States of the Church, and more particularly to the Duchy of Rome.

Definition of temporal: Relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular.

The Pope was the secular ruler of Rome and the rest of the Papal States. To deny this, is just sad.

Who’s denying it?

The Pope has many roles and titles.

Pope Leo XII had many Church titles, not one of them was Head of the “States of the Church”

http://www.gcatholic.org/hierarchy/pope/L12.htm

Back in those days, the Bishop of Rome (not the Supreme Pontiff) had temporal duties.

There have been other places throughout history where the Diocesan Bishop was given secular duties, and the Diocese and secular government merged.

The Universal Catholic Church, the Diocese of Rome, the Patriarchy of the West, and the “States of the Church” were all lead by the same person – the Bishop of Rome. But they were not one entity… they were all 4 distinct (yet related) entities ran by the same person.

It’s not different than Catholic Charities in each diocese today. The bishop is in charge, but it’s not part of the diocese. And the bishop has a lot less power in controlling what they do than we think he does.

God bless