Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

[Jaberwocky]

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

So I saw this stated multiple times in different ways on this thread. Can someone explain to me how we can “mature” in a way that contradicts our previous sense on the matter?

What I mean to ask is, if we can mature this way today, can we mature even more to come back full circle to where we started? In other words, how can just arbitrarily “mature” in a way that contradicts how we understood something before?

 

[triumphguy]

So I saw this stated multiple times in different ways on this thread. Can someone explain to me how we can “mature” in a way that contradicts our previous sense on the matter?

What I mean to ask is, if we can mature this way today, can we mature even more to come back full circle to where we started? In other words, how can just arbitrarily “mature” in a way that contradicts how we understood something before?

As a Church we are no longer triumphalistic, bent on creating political/temporal power on earth and on holding all humanity under our sway, and punishing those who disagree with us.

 

[Jaberwocky]

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.

Can you explain how we can have such an evolution of our understanding to accept what you just said? Because the Church can and has used execution of heretics as a valid method of punishment.

 

[Jaberwocky]

As a Church we are no longer triumphalistic, bent on creating political/temporal power on earth and on holding all humanity under our sway, and punishing those who disagree with us.

Look, I am asking a simple question.

Premise 1) The Church understood at a certain point in time that she can indeed burn heretics and it was JUST - verifiable by reading history books
Premise 2) The Church today apologized for it and some like you claim it was incompatible with Christian teaching - verifiable right on this thread

Question: How can the understanding of the Church change in a way that contradicts its prior sense? If it can change to what it is now, what can stop it from changing back to what it was?

 

[triumphguy]

Look, I am asking a simple question.

Premise 1) The Church understood at a certain point in time that she can indeed burn heretics and it was JUST - verifiable by reading history books
Premise 2) The Church today apologized for it and some like you claim it was incompatible with Christian teaching - verifiable right on this thread

Question: How can the understanding of the Church change in a way that contradicts its prior sense? If it can change to what it is now, what can stop it from changing back to what it was?

Jesus says “Follow me.”

How do we follow Him?

We have to follow Him, but our understanding of the how may change.

Put your question in the context of the times.

The times are different. The church is different in the way it relates to the world. And the world itself is different.

the way you follow a person on a beach is going to be very different from the way you follow them through a snow storm.

In the 12-15th century burning heretics was normal. Now it is not.

I know you are worried about the church or doctrine changing.

What hasn’t changed is that the church adapts to the world around it. It always has and always will. What hasn’t changed is Church dogma.

In the 12th to 15th century the church was the predominant political and spiritual power. In the 21st century it is not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I believe the object of burning heretics was to purge them of their sins. The likelihood that they would repent before the torch was lit was considered to be a method of saving their souls from perdition. No doubt this method was effective in many cases, in some cases perhaps not.

The Church apologizes because the modern world is committed to free thought. We must freely choose the truths Christ preached, not be coerced into accepting them.

A better method than burning at the stake might have been exile or banishment from the state. The heretic would have been left intact with his heresy, while not being free to preach treason to the members of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

A better method than burning at the stake might have been exile or banishment from the state. The heretic would have been left intact with his heresy, while not being free to preach treason to the members of the Church.

I believe that Aquinas held that the heretic was more dangerous to society than a murderer, as a murderer can only kill your body, while the heretic can kill your soul.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Jesus says “Follow me.”

How do we follow Him?

We have to follow Him, but our understanding of the how may change.

Put your question in the context of the times.

The times are different. The church is different in the way it relates to the world. And the world itself is different.

the way you follow a person on a beach is going to be very different from the way you follow them through a snow storm.

In the 12-15th century burning heretics was normal. Now it is not.

I know you are worried about the church or doctrine changing.

What hasn’t changed is that the church adapts to the world around it. It always has and always will. What hasn’t changed is Church dogma.

In the 12th to 15th century the church was the predominant political and spiritual power. In the 21st century it is not.

So your position then admits that in another 10 years, we can have burning heretics as normal again because lets face it, its all about adaptation, right? Is that what you are saying?

What exactly is Church dogma apart from the sense of what it is understood to mean?

 

[Jaberwocky]

I believe the object of burning heretics was to purge them of their sins. The likelihood that they would repent before the torch was lit was considered to be a method of saving their souls from perdition. No doubt this method was effective in many cases, in some cases perhaps not.

The Church apologizes because the modern world is committed to free thought. We must freely choose the truths Christ preached, not be coerced into accepting them.

A better method than burning at the stake might have been exile or banishment from the state. The heretic would have been left intact with his heresy, while not being free to preach treason to the members of the Church.

I don’t think the basis for burning was based on coercion but a defense and a punishment, no?

 

[triumphguy]

So your position then admits that in another 10 years, we can have burning heretics as normal again because lets face it, its all about adaptation, right? Is that what you are saying?

What exactly is Church dogma apart from the sense of what it is understood to mean?

Oh yeah absolutely - in 10 years we’ll be burning heretics again.

Happy now.

 

[Rau]

So your position then admits that in another 10 years, we can have burning heretics as normal again because lets face it, its all about adaptation, right? Is that what you are saying?

What exactly is Church dogma apart from the sense of what it is understood to mean?

Unlikely. In 500-800 years, that’s hard to say. What will the world and church be like then? We may equally well ask the question - will the armies of the world be fighting with swords and shields in 500 years? On balance, I think the answer to both questions is more likely “no”. The Church is good at retaining it’s learning and building on it over time.

I have not seen the apology to which you refer - can you supply a link to it?

I don’t see the relevance of “dogma”, or understand your last sentence.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

Because not only is it pretty inhumane to burn others alive, but because it has created long lasting tensions between religious groups and people of different nationalities.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

We used to execute traitors in this country, long after the Constitution was approved. It’s a natural instinct to want to kill those who betray us. So the Church, without establishing it as Church policy, looked the other way when the State enacted the execution of heretics. In this way the unity of Europe was assured. Today there is no unity in Europe (nor in America) and look at the mess we are in. Well paid traitors everywhere you look. Some of them in Congress and the Media and Academia. Thousands of them in the business world.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think I have to second that. Heresy is not a crime, and it’s certainly not an offense which warrants death.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Oh yeah absolutely - in 10 years we’ll be burning heretics again.

Happy now.

Its not about my happiness. I am just pointing out the absurdity that seems to follow if we follow your reasoning.

If the sense of the Church regarding acts can change with time in a contradictory way, the Church seems nothing but a social construct. Do you see the problem? Perhaps in a 100 years we will say it is inhumane to force gay couples to remain unmarried and we should allow them out of tolerance. Or maybe same with abortion and so forth.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Unlikely. In 500-800 years, that’s hard to say. What will the world and church be like then? We may equally well ask the question - will the armies of the world be fighting with swords and shields in 500 years? On balance, I think the answer to both questions is more likely “no”. The Church is good at retaining it’s learning and building on it over time.

I have not seen the apology to which you refer - can you supply a link to it?

I don’t see the relevance of “dogma”, or understand your last sentence.

The person I was replying to made reference to Dogma. I was merely replying to him.

My point overall is that the sense of what the Church allowed as permissible at one time cannot change with evolution of doctrine (including Dogma) to then contradict that sense.

I can understand an evolution in the sense where today we cannot execute heretics because Church doesn’t have that power it did back then and there are far too many heretics (so the idea of defending the faithful against the spread of heresy is pointless since it has already spread widely). Or perhaps we can say that we will no longer execute heretics because it upsets the people. Since we can do without executing heretics, we will choose to not exercise that punishment.

What I don’t understand is how we can look back and say we were wrong to execute heretics. If it was JUST to do so at one point in time, then it must remain an equally JUST punishment today. You cannot have some evolution of doctrine or understanding that contradicts the fact that burning heretics is now UNJUST.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Because not only is it pretty inhumane to burn others alive, but because it has created long lasting tensions between religious groups and people of different nationalities.

I am not really speaking of its effectiveness. That is a different matter which is debatable.

What I am speaking of here is the JUST nature of it. While we can say that it is not effective at stopping murder to execute murderers, there is no question of whether or not it is a JUST punishment. It is indeed a possible and JUST punishment that a state can enforce.

Similarly, the same applied for heretics.

So if the Church wants to tolerate heretics for whatever reasons today, that is fine. It does not contradict its prior position necessarily then. BUT, when you apologize for what took place back then, it seems to suggest that the Church carried out UNJUST punishments and today our understanding has evolved to discover that it was so.

That to me seems wrong.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

 

[triumphguy]

Its not about my happiness. I am just pointing out the absurdity that seems to follow if we follow your reasoning.

If the sense of the Church regarding acts can change with time in a contradictory way, the Church seems nothing but a social construct. Do you see the problem? Perhaps in a 100 years we will say it is inhumane to force gay couples to remain unmarried and we should allow them out of tolerance. Or maybe same with abortion and so forth.

I think you didn’t actually read then think about my post is what I think.

The way the church interacts with the world has changed.

That’s it.

What the church teaches hasn’t.

Got it?

And the world has changed and the way the church interacts with the world has changed.

Simple.

Church teaching hasn’t changed: heresy is still heresy.

Possibly in a galaxy far far away after the intergalactic empire has broken apart after a post apocalyptic war with an alien species and distant worlds have reverted to medieval technology there will be a place where Catholics burn heretics once again.

 

[Rau]

Jaberwocky - is this the point you are trying to make:

“In the past, the Church burned heretics, and thus taught (at the time) that this instance of killing was moral. It now teaches that such an instance was actually immoral. From this it follows that the Church is error-prone in teaching”

Is that the issue you are raising?