Tis_Bearself
Patron
I personally knew Father Drinan and while I do not agree with his views on abortion, he was a wonderful man and good teacher in a wide variety of other ways.
- Status
E
exnihilo
Guest
The problem here is this statement is condemning someone claiming something is against the will of God. It is like if I said ‘God says…’ when I personally have no revelation or authority. To speak for God is, or was, a very sacred thing. Moderns typically have no problem dictating what God holds as true and speaking for Him.
I don’t believe the Aquinas or the Fathers said to purge heathens (non Christians). If they ever spoke of cutting off a branch it was heretics who are Christians. They are Christians who have fallen away and turned from the true Faith.
Now, whether is is a good idea to burn heretics is a question that is fact dependent. The first question is whether it is good to punish heretics. This is something that most modern people think is good. Even many atheists think it is good. For atheists a heretic may be someone who refuses to acknowledge same sex ‘marriage’ or use the sex pronoun a person prefers.
The second question is what punishment is appropriate. Is burning a heretic good? Burning is just a form of execution. So the real question is is executing heretics good. On that most moderns seem to think executing heretics is not something we should do. But it would seem to me most people can’t formulate a principled argument for why it is never, under any circumstances, wrong to execute a heretic.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Giordano Bruno, at least, was executed by the Church. He was burned at the stake in Rome, which was Papal territory at the time. There’s no getting around the fact that probably one of the most bizarre and brilliant of heretics was executed by the Church.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Again, you are right but the sentiment is wrong… noticed how you ended the thought?:
You fail to accept that his heretical thoughts and teachings lead him to face the executioners and that he had a trial and that it was the state not the Church that executed him.
Back when they did not have such distinctions as today. Back when the state was challenged by heresy (at least that’s how they viewed it); heretics were enemy of the people (state):
Maran atha!
Angel
You, in effect, are intimating that this man died for his brilliant prowess and that it was the Church that executed him.
You fail to accept that his heretical thoughts and teachings lead him to face the executioners and that he had a trial and that it was the state not the Church that executed him.
Back when they did not have such distinctions as today. Back when the state was challenged by heresy (at least that’s how they viewed it); heretics were enemy of the people (state):
Did you catch the period of the event? Charges brought up in 1593, procedures lasted till 1600–when finally found guilty… so it was not the accuse, grab, and thumb-down by the Pope, thing!
Maran atha!
Angel
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
I think Bruno was probably out of his mind, to be honest with you. But since when did madness preclude brilliance? The two often go hand in hand. The fact is that it was the Church itself that executed him, and it can’t be foisted off as the act of any temporal authority, as the Church WAS the temporal authority in Rome at the time.Again, you are right but the sentiment is wrong… noticed how you ended the thought?:
niceatheist:
You, in effect, are intimating that this man died for his brilliant prowess and that it was the Church that executed him.
You fail to accept that his heretical thoughts and teachings lead him to face the executioners and that he had a trial and that it was the state not the Church that executed him.
Back when they did not have such distinctions as today. Back when the state was challenged by heresy (at least that’s how they viewed it); heretics were enemy of the people (state):
Maran atha!
Angel
Last edited:
J
JoshuaIsLord
Guest
Whether or not if the Church committed executions or not is not the point. The point is, the Church was ultimately responsible. The Church ruled with an Iron Rod for a thousand years from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire to the Time of the Great Thesis posted by Martin Luther. Nothing happened without the Church’s Seal of Approval. Stop defending the acts of the Church. It has had some bad history. It has had some bad Popes. It has had some bad Priests. It has had some bad Laity. And no doubt it will in the future have more of the same of those, Hopefully they will very few and far between. Remember by comparison, those entities back then are very primitive and barbaric compared to us now. Point in Case they believed in things that we no longer believe in.
en.wikipedia.org
Inquisition - Wikipedia
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Verdanty,
On other threads, this subject of executing heretics came up as well. Here’s 2 responses to your point
Has the Catholic Church apologized for burning Giordano Bruno at the stake? Apologetics
Has the Catholic Church apologized for burning Giordano Bruno at the stake? Apologetics
On other threads, this subject of executing heretics came up as well. Here’s 2 responses to your point
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
He was executed by the Papal States, not the Church. Just because the Head of State of the Papal States was the Pope did not mean the Church executed him.
I know it is very difficult to understand (and frankly scandalous), but the Papal States was not the Church. During the years of the Papal States, the Pope had two distinct jobs.
Honestly, it’s no different that a lawyer how moonlights as an adjunct college professor. His/her students would not tell people they were being taught by the law firm. The lawyer would be acting as an adjunct college professor separate from his/her official with the law firm.
It’s also no different than a Catholic Deacon who has a day job as a family therapist. His patients would not say they are receiving therapy from the Catholic Church.
But again, this kind of scandal is what caused the Church to back off from allowing priests and bishops to hold public office after the end of the Papal States and what caused St. Pope John Paul II to make it church law in 1980.
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, there have been bad laity, priests, bishops, & popes. No one denies that. But they are not “The Church.” They belong to the Church, but they are The Church.
The Church is the Bride of Christ and infallible. The men and women who belong to the Church (even clergy) are not infallible … even the Popes are fallible as men, leaders, pastors, etc.
I highly recommend the following resources:
The Real Story of the Inquisition (MP3)
Historian Steve Weidenkopf digs into the wealth of historical data to debunk common anti-Catholic myths about the Inquisition.
shop.catholic.com
https://shop.catholic.com/search.php?search_query=inquisition§ion=product
J
JoshuaIsLord
Guest
They are of the Church.
Their actions bring discredit upon the Church.
If you sin, you do not just sin against the Trinity, you SIN against the Church.
Just like the Pedophile Problem brought shame upon our Church.
Just like the Gross Covering Up of the Pedophile Problem cause the world to lose respect for us.
So does the Internet and it’s ability to educate the People about bad history of the Church causes the world to lose respect for us and thus causes the Church shame.
Yes the Church is Infallible, BUT the Church is not IMPECCABLE.
And that lack of IMPECCABLENESS is what we are addressing.
And most of those sources you provided are attempts to rationalize away the Inquisitions.
P.S. I have 2 of those The third I will not even attempt to read as the notion of it being something “noble” is preposterous. As a scholar myself, I found some dishonesty in some of the ones that I have read. Equate it to the plate of cookies with just one cookie containing poison.
Even Patrick Madrid whom I highly respect eventually tries to put Rose Colored glasses on the subject. Honest Scholarship dispels the rationalizing.
I love Catholic Apologetics, but this one subject that cannot be truthfully defended. It is what it is.
Their actions bring discredit upon the Church.
If you sin, you do not just sin against the Trinity, you SIN against the Church.
Just like the Pedophile Problem brought shame upon our Church.
Just like the Gross Covering Up of the Pedophile Problem cause the world to lose respect for us.
So does the Internet and it’s ability to educate the People about bad history of the Church causes the world to lose respect for us and thus causes the Church shame.
Yes the Church is Infallible, BUT the Church is not IMPECCABLE.
And that lack of IMPECCABLENESS is what we are addressing.
And most of those sources you provided are attempts to rationalize away the Inquisitions.
P.S. I have 2 of those The third I will not even attempt to read as the notion of it being something “noble” is preposterous. As a scholar myself, I found some dishonesty in some of the ones that I have read. Equate it to the plate of cookies with just one cookie containing poison.
Even Patrick Madrid whom I highly respect eventually tries to put Rose Colored glasses on the subject. Honest Scholarship dispels the rationalizing.
I love Catholic Apologetics, but this one subject that cannot be truthfully defended. It is what it is.
Last edited:
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
It ia still acceptable for the government to execute the heretic.
J
Jamie5
Guest
No it’s not. What government and what heretic do you speak of?
V
Verdanty
Guest
I’m still reading deeper into this from what the others have posted, but I think there’s some very mixed messages here.
A) Killing heretics is good, we just don’t do it now because the secular people would be freaked out and would stop us.
B) Killing heretics is extreme and unnecessary.
C) Governments were right to kill heretics for stability.
Very interesting area, although I don’t think the argument that the Papal States was not the Church is compelling. We forget that the Papal States in its final years declared anyone who supported Italian Unification was excommunicate after all. I.E: If you don’t like us in charge we are consigning you to hell.
The Papal States was called the Patrimony of Peter for a reason.
A) Killing heretics is good, we just don’t do it now because the secular people would be freaked out and would stop us.
B) Killing heretics is extreme and unnecessary.
C) Governments were right to kill heretics for stability.
Very interesting area, although I don’t think the argument that the Papal States was not the Church is compelling. We forget that the Papal States in its final years declared anyone who supported Italian Unification was excommunicate after all. I.E: If you don’t like us in charge we are consigning you to hell.
The Papal States was called the Patrimony of Peter for a reason.
N
niceatheist
Guest
This seems to be splitting hairs to me. The Pope was the head of state of the Papal States. He was essentially a monarch, so yes, it was Church officials who executed Bruno. Saying “well, they did it in their temporal role” doesn’t in any way abrogate what they did. They executed a heretic; someone charged with a religious crime.niceatheist:
He was executed by the Papal States, not the Church. Just because the Head of State of the Papal States was the Pope did not mean the Church executed him.
I know it is very difficult to understand (and frankly scandalous), but the Papal States was not the Church. During the years of the Papal States, the Pope had two distinct jobs.
Honestly, it’s no different that a lawyer how moonlights as an adjunct college professor. His/her students would not tell people they were being taught by the law firm. The lawyer would be acting as an adjunct college professor separate from his/her official with the law firm.
It’s also no different than a Catholic Deacon who has a day job as a family therapist. His patients would not say they are receiving therapy from the Catholic Church.
But again, this kind of scandal is what caused the Church to back off from allowing priests and bishops to hold public office after the end of the Papal States and what caused St. Pope John Paul II to make it church law in 1980.
S
steve-b
Guest
taking this out of the abstract, I can just say, I personally wouldn’t be putting a needle in anyone’s arm, or be the one to push the lever to deliver the fatal dose to anyone. I’m thinking The state sure can’t absolve anyone of such an act in Our Lord’s way of thinking… And that’s what I focus on. But we know, someone WILL step up and deliver that fatal dose for the state.
To my knowledge, the Church has never claimed she personally or in any other capacity, had the right to execute anyone. But if someone has a reference to the contrary, please post it… properly referenced of course.
As for the “Church”
Ref: the execution of Bruno the heretic as an example
“he (Bruno) was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (February 8), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (February 17). Bruno was not condemned for his defense of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. “
The Church did not execute Bruno, the state did… Heretics were enemies of both the Church and the State. The Church excommunicates heretics, but the State not the Church deals with them as we know in a far different fashion.
From:
www.catholic.com
To my knowledge, the Church has never claimed she personally or in any other capacity, had the right to execute anyone. But if someone has a reference to the contrary, please post it… properly referenced of course.
As for the “Church”
Ref: the execution of Bruno the heretic as an example
“he (Bruno) was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (February 8), and burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori in Rome (February 17). Bruno was not condemned for his defense of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc. “
The Church did not execute Bruno, the state did… Heretics were enemies of both the Church and the State. The Church excommunicates heretics, but the State not the Church deals with them as we know in a far different fashion.
From:
Giordano Bruno
Bruno, GIORDANO, Italian philosopher, b. at Nola in Campania, in the Kingdom of Naples, in 1548; d. at Rome, 1600. At the age of eleven he went to Naples, to st...
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Which state? Was it the Papal State?
The papal states were under under the sovereign direct rule of the Catholic Pope?
N
niceatheist
Guest
This is complete splitting of hairs. Rome was ruled by the Pope, it was basically run by the Church. Yes, when they ordered his execution, Church officials were technically acting in their temporal capacity, but it was the very same people who put on the vestments. It was the same people who made up the Church hierarchy in Rome who ordered Bruno’s execution.
J
JoshuaIsLord
Guest
I hear ya, that is what I’ve been trying to say, but in other words.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
No one here said “killing heretics is good” nor did anyone say “governments were right to kill heretics.”
All anyone is saying is that everything is complex and it’s important to review history not with modern eyes, but though the eyes of people during those times.
J
JoshuaIsLord
Guest
The Dickens You Say.
Last edited:
- Status