When did executing heretics become immoral?

[niceatheist]

Verdanty:

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.

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.

So really, the Church is eternal, except when it did or at least aided and abetted misdeeds, and suddenly historical context has to be inserted.

I actually agree with you. We can’t really judge people from centuries ago by modern standards. There was a time when capital punishment of the cruelest kind was accepted throughout Christendom, and while on occasion the Church would object, most of the time it was quite happy to turn over heretics to temporal authorities to be disposed of. In the case of Bruno, of course, we are to believe that the priests directly involved in the conviction, sentencing and ultimate execution (did I mention they burned that crazy man alive), just transformed themselves into state bureaucrats for the purposes of lighting someone on fire, and that somehow that the Church didn’t order a man burned alive.

In the end, the Church essentially changed its mind, but that’s tough for some to swallow who would prefer to imagine the Church never alters its position. But the Church has altered its position on occasion, perhaps in part because it no longer held the temporal power nor would any nation state permit it that power, perhaps sometimes because there was a genuine change of heart.

 

[phil19034]

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 Pope at that time was totally against losing the Papal States, and frankly he was dead wrong about that. The removal of the Papal States from the direct control of the Pope in hind sight was a great thing.

 

[phil19034]

So really, the Church is eternal, except when it did or at least aided and abetted misdeeds, and suddenly historical context has to be inserted.

I actually agree with you. We can’t really judge people from centuries ago by modern standards. There was a time when capital punishment of the cruelest kind was accepted throughout Christendom, and while on occasion the Church would object, most of the time it was quite happy to turn over heretics to temporal authorities to be disposed of. In the case of Bruno, of course, we are to believe that the priests directly involved in the conviction, sentencing and ultimate execution (did I mention they burned that crazy man alive), just transformed themselves into state bureaucrats for the purposes of lighting someone on fire, and that somehow that the Church didn’t order a man burned alive.

In the end, the Church essentially changed its mind, but that’s tough for some to swallow who would prefer to imagine the Church never alters its position. But the Church has altered its position on occasion, perhaps in part because it no longer held the temporal power nor would any nation state permit it that power, perhaps sometimes because there was a genuine change of heart.

You wrote, “most of the time it was quite happy to turn over heretics to temporal authorities to be disposed of.”

I don’t know if I would completely say that, but the world view was different.

The average life span was shorter and death was all around. Many clergy believed from a pastoral point of view that the death penalty forced the criminal to repentant and conversion because they feared hell more than death.

And because they were often prepared for death (because it was all around) death penalties had to be more scary to be a deterrent.

With today’s modern medicine, our life expediencies are much longer and frankly people are more afraid of death than in the middle ages. In centuries past, many people looked forward to death, they didn’t kill themselves, but wished it would come soon so they could be in Heaven. (Though one heresy did practice ritual suicide). Today, you would be hard pressed to find even the most pious person hoping for death.

So, their worldview regarding death was very foreign to ours.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Their worldview regarding death was very foreign to ours.

We had Justice Scalia a few years ago arguing in favor of capital punishment on the basis that life didn’t end at death anyway since you could go on to the afterlife, so executing people wasn’t that bad in his book.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Their worldview regarding death was very foreign to ours.

We had Justice Scalia a few years ago arguing in favor of capital punishment on the basis that life didn’t end at death anyway since you could go on to the afterlife, so executing people wasn’t that bad in his book.

yes, his view was similar to the view from the middle ages.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

After the other thread where someone referred to burning heretics at the stake as an “act of mercy” since it saved others from being led astray by them, nothing I read on here surprises me now

 

[phil19034]

I can’t believe what I just read above

Just read how many of the Saints “longed for death,” including St. Therese, so they could be with Jesus.

 

[jcrichton]

I would have to research on that Church as the authority of Rome bit; yet, understand that I find no problem with any persons machinations. If we are honest enough we will find that God has revealed Himself to man and that through nature man has been able to discern and discover the secrets set in motion by Creation.

It is my firm belief that even non-Believers are granted revelation (not theological) so that we find people as Giordano envisioning the secrets of the Universe far ahead of their temporal technological machinery being able to study/discover.

I do not think any great mind as suffering from anything as madness; however, ego is a different matter altogether–even the most zealous of Believers fail at times.

On second thought:

Like other iterations of the Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition was responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of committing offenses relating to heresy, including Protestantism, sorcery, immorality, blasphemy, Judaizing and witchcraft, as well as for censorship of printed literature. After 1567, with the execution of Pietro Carnesecchi, an allegedly leading heretic, the Holy Office moved to broaden concerns beyond that of theological matters, such as love magic, witchcraft, superstitions, and cultural morality. However, the treatment was more disciplinary than punitive.[1] The tribunals of the Roman Inquisition covered most of the Italian peninsula as well as Malta and also existed in isolated pockets of papal jurisdiction in other parts of Europe, including Avignon in France. The Roman Inquisition, though, was considerably more bureaucratic and focussed on pre-emptive control in addition to the reactive judicial prosecution experienced under other iterations.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition)

If you slow down enough you can pick up little bits of info that places a significant perspective on how things got done.

You can believe as you like; the fact remains no amount of hindsight will change the past and no amount of ignorance will change the present. Anti-Catholic propaganda always places the darkest judgment on the Church, ignoring factors and numbers and making one blind to the horrors perpetrated both to society and to the Church not only in the long gone past, but also the here and now.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[niceatheist]

I’m not going to disagree with you. Before the end of the 19th century, lifespans even in the wealthier parts of the world were considerably shorter, and further Medieval and Early Modern Christianity had a certain fatalistic aspect to it. As well, the Church, even where it was strictly speaking a purely spiritual power, in fact wielded considerably political power, so that in a real way, to deny the Church’s authority or in any way to challenge its role in Western Christendom as Christ’s own church was as much a political challenge as it was a theological one.

The fact was that there was no meaningful separation of church and state. The closest one could get was controversies like the Investiture Controversy, which was more about secular princes, and in particular Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, having some degree of control of the Church within their territories. And of course, such was the political power of the Church at the time that Henry IV ended up waiting in the snow until Pope Gregory VII deigned to see him and reverse the excommunication.

That’s why it always seems a little like special pleading to declare that the Church had nothing at all to do with the execution of heretics. A heresy trial was typically performed by the Church, and then, if convicted, the heretic would be turned over to temporal authorities. Everyone knew what was going to happen if one were found guilty of heresy during the Medieval and Early Modern periods, so the Church was fully prepared to send people to their deaths for holding sufficiently unorthodox views, so it’s a little like trying to defend a prosecutor for knowingly send an innocent man to the chair, because, you know, he didn’t actually pull the switch.

 

[jcrichton]

Did you forget some of that information, on the same page?:

Before 1100, the Catholic Church suppressed what they believed to be heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but without using torture,[2] and seldom resorting to executions.[14][15] Such punishments were opposed by a number of clergymen and theologians, although some countries punished heresy with the death penalty.[16] [17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)

In a time when a monarch could sentence people to death for putting mayo on a sandwich instead of mustard (like certain places still practice in the world today), the Church not only showed leniency but provided counsel for the defense and kept records!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I, don’t follow… the way people were back then, including the Catholic Church should excuse the way people are still today, including the killing of 250,000,000 people by secular states and the terrorist acts of the Muslims that kill, rape, oppress, and force into slavery people they deem infidels?

Please, explain it a little further.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It is not about defending. It is about accepting the truth of what took place.

Regardless on how you think it, that’s the raw reality: things were done differently!

Powers of state used the Church and bad Popes, Bishops, and Priests misused their Offices.

The argument is about treating all things in the same perspective. Blaming the Church for what hindsight and revisionists want to sweep under her “culpa” is insane.

It’s like that stupid move to remove statues or other symbols from Americana because it has a semblance of hatred or oppression in it… by the right balance of things, all of us foreigners should exit the continent and give it back to the aboriginals, should we not?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Verdanty]

When a member of the Church does something good and they claim it to be an act of faith= Behold the glory of the one true faith
When a member of the Church does something bad and they claim it to be an act of faith = Not us! Evil humans!

jcrichton, I don’t agree with your position by any means but please…Don’t compare yourself to muslims. The church has had the sense not to try to publicly torture to death people who disagree with them for the past few centuries, Muslims have yet to do this so you’re a bit ahead of them.

 

[niceatheist]

I, don’t follow… the way people were back then, including the Catholic Church should excuse the way people are still today, including the killing of 250,000,000 people by secular states and the terrorist acts of the Muslims that kill, rape, oppress, and force into slavery people they deem infidels?

Please, explain it a little further.

Maran atha!

Angel

Explain what exactly? Your blatant leading question and attempt at whataboutery?

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Steve!

You are asking people to reason… they already made up their mind that the Church is to blame for all the bad in the world; it does not matter if these “bads” happened 1500 years ago… these defenders of the weak and defenseless (unless they are babies in their moms’ wombs–then it’s ok to kill them, ripping them apart and then sell their carcasses for “science”)… all they need to know is “Catholic” and sometimes just “Christ.” Don’t talk to them about the atrocities being committed today in the name of “xyz,” as long as it has nothing to do with Church or God it is just life as usual.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It’s quite the hypocrisy, isn’t it. Your side kills 250,000,000 within the last 200 years of world history… and you have a huge peeve about Bruno who was killed hundreds of years ago.

Oh, wait, the states’ killing is good. Gotcha: Church bad, states good.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Jamie5]

what do you mean “your side” vs “whose side”? This isn’t about sides I think.

 

[jcrichton]

You keep missing that all a heretic had to do was pretend to believe as the Church and state believed; also you keep missing all the text where it states that the Church provided counsel (which the states did not) and that the Church used leniency and that the Church did not execute the accused… you also ignore every issue of state abuse not hundreds of years in the buried past but presently around the world and in the not so distant past of the 19th and 20th centuries where your enlightened states and people went along for the exterminations of the millions upon millions.

Yeah, cry a crocks tear and call it simpatico.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[niceatheist]

It’s quite the hypocrisy, isn’t it. Your side kills 250,000,000 within the last 200 years of world history… and you have a huge peeve about Bruno who was killed hundreds of years ago.

Oh, wait, the states’ killing is good. Gotcha: Church bad, states good.

Maran atha!

Angel

What’s “my side”?

 

[jcrichton]

No, I compare myself to you and your peaceful states that put to death their own citizens by the millions.

Maran atha!

Angel