Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

[Jaberwocky]

Hello,

So the question is pretty much what the title says: Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

I do not see why we should do that when I see justification given for these actions in the past. The Catholic Encyclopedia released in 1912 says

The Church’s legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d’être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of the Kulturkampf in Germany still smoulder; the separation and confiscation laws and the ostracism of Catholics in France are the scandal of the day. Christ said: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ.

So why on earth is there an apology? This essentially feels like the Church apologizing for Capital Punishment when Capital Punishment is a just punishment.

 

[JamesATyler]

I gathered that the reason is because the value of an individual is evaluated differently in modern times. If a person were a heretic in those times, the person was valueless (in the eyes of many) to the point of even being destructive to others. So they had to be killed to stop them from ruining the faith of others. In modern times, people (including the authorities) do not consider a person to be without value if they believe the wrong things. The tendency has been toward recognizing the intrinsic value of a person, as being high, regardless of their beliefs or sin and to treat them humanly both for their sake and ours. Also, the tendency has been toward having greater faith in the Lord, our fellow man, and ourselves in the face of heresy. To me that appears to be where Jesus has been leading the flock over the course of time. So today, we look back in regret at the actions of our predecessors.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I gathered that the reason is because the value of an individual is evaluated differently in modern times. If a person were a heretic in those times, the person was valueless (in the eyes of many) to the point of even being destructive to others. So they had to be killed to stop them from ruining the faith of others. In modern times, people (including the authorities) do not consider a person to be without value if they believe the wrong things. The tendency has been toward recognizing the intrinsic value of a person, as being high, regardless of their beliefs or sin and to treat them humanly both for their sake and ours. Also, the tendency has been toward having greater faith in the Lord, our fellow man, and ourselves in the face of heresy. To me that appears to be where Jesus has been leading the flock over the course of time. So today, we look back in regret at the actions of our predecessors.

Hmm. But wouldn’t that be an evolution of doctrine to suggest a contrary sense to which was there before?

Why can it not be possible that execution of heretics is justifiable even with consideration for the intrinsic value just as much as Capital Punishment is still a justifiable punishment after considering the intrinsic value?

 

[JamesATyler]

Hmm. But wouldn’t that be an evolution of doctrine to suggest a contrary sense to which was there before?

Why can it not be possible that execution of heretics is justifiable even with consideration for the intrinsic value just as much as Capital Punishment is still a justifiable punishment after considering the intrinsic value?

I don’t know if burning heretic is a doctrine of faith, if that is what you mean. I kind of doubt it is. My observation is based on what I see in my fellow Christians and how they feel about friend and enemy. Jesus said

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew, Ch 5

So I think that “the flock” is adhering more closely to what the Church has held to be the truth since the very beginning despite what one member or another of the Church has preached or written.

 

[triumphguy]

Hello,

So the question is pretty much what the title says: Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

I do not see why we should do that when I see justification given for these actions in the past. The Catholic Encyclopedia released in 1912 says

So why on earth is there an apology? This essentially feels like the Church apologizing for Capital Punishment when Capital Punishment is a just punishment.

1912 to 2014 - there’s been a maturing in our attitudes towards others.

 

[TK421]

It isn’t necessarily a blanket apology of every single occurrence, but there was a muddling between the Church and secular authorities that probably made the merits of many of the executions very questionable.

Attitudes have - in the more accurate sense - become less mature than what they once were, so it would no longer be at all prudent to burn a toxic, outspoken heretic. This was done in order to protect the faith. In the contemporary world, doing this would incur the opposite effect, hence why it is never done. In both instances, the end goal is love.

Does Jack Chick deserve to be tied to a stake and burned alive? The correct answer is: yes. Is it prudent? No. That would be suicide.

 

[bzkoss236]

Burning heretics is not a doctrine of the faith, and the Church has never formally burned heretics either.

The burning was done by the state. The Church would only apologize because of the harm the events have caused.

This is just like how the Church wasn’t really the bad guy in the case of Galileo’s house arrest (in fact, there was no real ‘bad guy’), but the Church apologized for any harm it may have caused.

Also with the Crusades. The Church led the crusade, which was a noble thing to prevent the Holy Land from being overtaken. However, the Church did not tell individuals to do some terrible things that they did, but some of these terrible things happened, and the Church apologized for that.

The Church is apologizing on behalf of those who were involved, including those who handed the heretics over to the secular powers.

The Church apologizes because she loves, she cares.

 

[severus68]

Hmm. But wouldn’t that be an evolution of doctrine to suggest a contrary sense to which was there before?

Why can it not be possible that execution of heretics is justifiable even with consideration for the intrinsic value just as much as Capital Punishment is still a justifiable punishment after considering the intrinsic value?

There is no justification- not to Christians. Torture, cruelty and a horrible death is not in line with the teachings of Christ. Its not about a change/evolution of doctrine, its about enlightened (can’t find a better word) and awareness.

 

[severus68]

I don’t know if burning heretic is a doctrine of faith, if that is what you mean. I kind of doubt it is. My observation is based on what I see in my fellow Christians and how they feel about friend and enemy. Jesus said

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew, Ch 5

So I think that “the flock” is adhering more closely to what the Church has held to be the truth since the very beginning despite what one member or another of the Church has preached or written.

Well said and quoted.

 

[severus68]

Burning heretics is not a doctrine of the faith, and the Church has never formally burned heretics either.

The burning was done by the state. The Church would only apologize because of the harm the events have caused.

This is just like how the Church wasn’t really the bad guy in the case of Galileo’s house arrest (in fact, there was no real ‘bad guy’), but the Church apologized for any harm it may have caused.

Also with the Crusades. The Church led the crusade, which was a noble thing to prevent the Holy Land from being overtaken. However, the Church did not tell individuals to do some terrible things that they did, but some of these terrible things happened, and the Church apologized for that.

The Church is apologizing on behalf of those who were involved, including those who handed the heretics over to the secular powers.

The Church apologizes because she loves, she cares.

Not the Church of Christ but some in the Church were very responsible. Human failings.

 

[severus68]

It isn’t necessarily a blanket apology of every single occurrence, but there was a muddling between the Church and secular authorities that probably made the merits of many of the executions very questionable.

Attitudes have - in the more accurate sense - become less mature than what they once were, so it would no longer be at all prudent to burn a toxic, outspoken heretic. This was done in order to protect the faith. In the contemporary world, doing this would incur the opposite effect, hence why it is never done. In both instances, the end goal is love.

Does Jack Chick deserve to be tied to a stake and burned alive? The correct answer is: yes. Is it prudent? No. That would be suicide.

No, it is not about what is prudent but what is right. No one deserves to be burnt at the stake, to take your example.

 

[fhansen]

Hello,

So the question is pretty much what the title says: Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

I do not see why we should do that when I see justification given for these actions in the past. The Catholic Encyclopedia released in 1912 says

So why on earth is there an apology? This essentially feels like the Church apologizing for Capital Punishment when Capital Punishment is a just punishment.

Burning at the stake, and perhaps even capital punishment of any stripe, cannot be reconciled with the gospel of Christ.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Because the Church is responsible. Yes the people today are
not, and the people long ago are instead, but as a single body,
the Church is kinda responsible.

Has the LDS Church ever apologized for the Mountain Meadows Massacre? hmm…

 

[TK421]

No, it is not about what is prudent but what is right. No one deserves to be burnt at the stake, to take your example.

What is prudent can affect what is right or wrong.

A protestant reformer in the 1500s would be immensely more culpable of their sin than a generic modern protestant. I think Martin Luther was probably worse than Adolf Hitler. His legacy has certainly caused more damage and brought more corporal suffering to the world.

In the modern, multicultural world, in some countries, it is above the curve for a person simply to want to please God. The circumstances of the two situations are nearly as different as night and day.

Adulterers never ceased to deserve to die. They deserved to die in the Law of Moses and they deserve to die today. But what can matter is how we ought to treat them as people in spite of what they have merited. When I was 17 I blasphemed God, so that merited me getting killed, but here I still am.

 

[TK421]

Isn’t there suppose to be a distinction between the state and the individual? An individual is obliged to forgive. The state is obliged to punish. This is why capital punishment existed in Catholic countries for centuries on end without mass protest from the Church.

Because of the obligation to protect its citizens, couldn’t this include toxic heretics? Going back to my example from Martin Luther, let’s suppose for a minute that there was no advent of Islam in the 600s to prevent the Church from spreading eastward. Let’s pretend there was no schism. No Reformation in the 1500s to divide Europe. Imagine where the world could be right now without such discord and conflict. Of course, a non-Catholic would disagree, but under the supreme moral guidance of the faith, I believe the entire world could be a near-utopian paradise. Heretics have destroyed the world. Millions of children are starving to death because of their legacy. It’s not just some lofty disagreement over high theology. These things matter.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I look at the apology as Christ healing Malchus right after Peter, His Apostle and first Pope, had chopped off Malchus’ ear. Sure Peter thought he was doing something right when in reality his actions were not the right way to deal with the situation. Likewise some of the Church’s members have done the same and Christ has apologized through His Church for these actions.

 

[Contarini]

Isn’t there suppose to be a distinction between the state and the individual? An individual is obliged to forgive. The state is obliged to punish

This is certainly been a common cultural opinion, deeply enshrined in conservative Protestant theology of certain kinds, and shared by many Catholics, especially in the early modern period.

But can you point me to it in actual Catholic teaching?

As I read Catholic social and political teaching, it seems to me that this conception of the state is unorthodox–the state does not function by radically different moral rules than individuals do. In fact, the classic Catholic sources don’t really consider “the state” at all, but rather persons in a position of authority. The state is a modern invention, and I suspect it of being an idolatrous and demonic one. Persons having governmental authority do indeed have greater responsibility to maintain order and protect the innocent than private individuals do, and thus may have fewer opportunities to show mercy and more obligation to show retributive justice. But I can’t see that the basic principles are any different.

Edwin

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

Does Jack Chick deserve to be tied to a stake and burned alive? The correct answer is: yes. Is it prudent? No. That would be suicide.

 

[TK421]

To make myself clear: I am not covertly planning to bomb abortionist clinics, etc., but there is a fundamental distinction between what is merited and what is actually carried out as punishment in this life. Sooner or later, a person does have to answer for what they do.

I admit this discussion on the relationship between Church and the secular authorities still isn’t something I’ve fully wrapped my brain around, and in retrospect I shouldn’t have posted at all.

 

[Rau]

Hmm. But wouldn’t that be an evolution of doctrine to suggest a contrary sense to which was there before?

Why can it not be possible that execution of heretics is justifiable even with consideration for the intrinsic value just as much as Capital Punishment is still a justifiable punishment after considering the intrinsic value?

The Catechism today admits the possibility of justifiable Capital Punishment, but the circumstances under which it is allowed are so narrow that for all practical purposes, it is ruled out.

If a Church authority were (let’s say in accordance with a hypothetical piece of Canon Law) to execute a person for (proven) heresy, would you expect the State to arrest and prosecute that Church person?