When did executing heretics become immoral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Verdanty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vatican veto?
False.
Are you lying or just misinformed?
Careful, if you claim you are not a liar you may be asked when you stopped lying (using your own flawed logic in your OP)
 
twf said:
But not because the Vatican supports penalizing gays… as your link clarified. The Vatican always condemns the death penalty and any sort of mistreatment of gay people.
I’m not clear on the veto aspect though. I thought the Vatican only had non-voting Observer status at the UN.
Click to expand...
The following is a list of UN LGBT UN Resolutions pertaining to LGBT rights:


So far as I can tell they have all passed. They are votes in the General Assembly, so no member of the UN has a veto. As others have pointed out, the only real veto in the UN is the veto that the Permanent Members of the Security Council hold. As well, as others have pointed out, Vatican City is not a member of the United Nations, but has observer status, so can’t even vote on UN resolutions.

So the whole “veto” claim appears to be an invention to me. The Vatican objected to the Resolution in question, and I certainly don’t think much of that, but that appears to be as far as the involvement of the Vatican.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
40.png
twf:
But not because the Vatican supports penalizing gays… as your link clarified. The Vatican always condemns the death penalty and any sort of mistreatment of gay people.
I’m not clear on the veto aspect though. I thought the Vatican only had non-voting Observer status at the UN.
Click to expand...
The following is a list of UN LGBT UN Resolutions pertaining to LGBT rights:
OHCHR | LGBT UN Resolutions

So far as I can tell they have all passed. They are votes in the General Assembly, so no member of the UN has a veto. As others have pointed out, the only real veto in the UN is the veto that the Permanent Members of the Security Council hold. As well, as others have pointed out, Vatican City is not a member of the United Nations, but has observer status, so can’t even vote on UN resolutions.

So the whole “veto” claim appears to be an invention to me. The Vatican objected to the Resolution in question, and I certainly don’t think much of that, but that appears to be as far as the involvement of the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’m a bit wrong. The Vatican, as a sovereign state, does have rights to vote on international treaties, and thus it did apparently vote against some of these resolutions. That being said, whatever the position you think it has taken on these resolutions, it does not possess a veto.
 
One very interesting non-execution but nevertheless a heresy judgment was that of John Wycliffe.
Although he died of a stroke in 1384, Council of Constance had Wycliffe declared a heretic, 1428 Pope Martin V signed the order to have his body exhumed and burned along with his works.
 
Yeah, but what was implied was that the Vatican had the veto to kill a resolution… not to vote on anything… to actually kill something is quite different than to have a say, don’t you think?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…but if only Catholics remain, why would Catholics hunt down Catholics–unless they are divided in the Catholics for Cephas, for Apollos, for St. Paul?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
De Molay was certainly a Mason. de Charney, I believe was a mason as well.

They were executed by the French State (the King).

Why? Because they were a state within a state (and my belief is that their state was probably plotting against France) and were a danger to the state, which just happened to be Catholic. Today, in U.S., we call this treason, which carries severe penalties.
 
St. Martin de Tours was a saint who was known for preaching against execution of heretics. (4th century I believe).
 
Last edited:
jcrichton said:
Yeah, but what was implied was that the Vatican had the veto to kill a resolution… not to vote on anything… to actually kill something is quite different than to have a say, don’t you think?

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Vatican has no veto. I’m going to be charitable and call that claim a mistake, but it is very much wrong. It also appears the Vatican’s objection stems more from concerns over normalization of homosexual acts, and while I disagree fundamentally with that, it is a wholesale misrepresentation of the Holy See’s position to say the Church backs the persecution or murder of LGBT individuals.
 
Exactly!

Some things are outright misunderstandings; no one’s to blame; other times they are calculated… specially when the media takes hold of things… as a Catholic I am fundamentally anti-homosexual unions as Sacramental Marriage–yet, outside of the Church, I have no problem with anyone’s sexual interests… good thing about Judgment: it’s personal.

Yet, anyone can take my words, as stated above, and trump up a whole bunch of nonsense about me/Catholics.

Then the opposite is also true… every time Pope Francis expresses an opinion his words are translated into “Church Doctrine.”

Ever heard of a Pope being caught in so much distortion–clearly, he also has the temerity of remaining silent when he should speak, which causes further confusion and enables salvo for the assaults…

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
I already said I wouldn’t suggest capital punishment. For a variety of reasons.

People charged with a crime have a right to legal counsel.
 
niceatheist said:
40.png
steve-b:
40.png
AlNg:
40.png
steve-b:
It was the secular authorities that executed him.
Click to expand...
Where was this? Were these the secular authorities in the papal state who were under the sovereign direct rule of the Pope?
Click to expand...
Most references on this subject say Bruno was handed over to the secular authorities.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Giordano_Bruno

In this source as well
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03016a.htm

definition of secular power within that link?

you will also see this link explaining “secular power”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm
Click to expand...
The problem being that in Rome, the Church effectively was the secular authority. You do understand that the Papal States were pretty much the personal domain of the Papacy, and that its higher-ranking officials were Church officials.
Click to expand...
Please read

Giordano Bruno And The Truth About The Inquisition, Part 1

The Inquisition was set up to ensure rights and a trial for the accused.
www.patheos.com www.patheos.com
 
It’s important to separate what the Church does and what the state does,
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the ole’ devil pulls the wool over a lot of folks’ eyes. Their lack of understanding and wisdom.
 
Hi!

…we’re making progress… so what would constitute heresy and blasphemy?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi!

Are you for real?

Do you recall the OP?

There’s no ‘seeking truth or reason’ here. No amount of facts is enough; no amount of truth is enough–unless the verdict is, ‘Church, bad; me gotcha!’

The hunting down the Catholic Church has not ceased since her Founding… it’s only been lived down and halted throughout history. Today, even in a Catholic cite we can witness it vividly!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
Hi, friend!

I’m often misunderstood; please be assured that (unless we progress to an insane exchange) my tone remains firmly based in Christ’s Fellowship.

You have proposed things that seems quite uncharitable and in-Christian like–that’s how I view them; yet, I am not attacking you or your character; I truly mean to follow your understanding/concepts.

If you feel I have offended you, I apologize; if you feel we cannot advance any further, I respect your position.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top