Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

[CrossofChrist]

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.

With you so far.

Similarly, the same applied for heretics.

Is it though? No one can be forced into believing the truth through external forces. You can’t force faith on anyone; even if you try, the person/people/whatever won’t actually believe–you’ll end up with a bunch of people who wink and nod about their faith just to avoid persecution.

There is no inherent right to error of course. But there is a right not to be forced into believing the truth apart from the power the truth itself possesses (because we have an obligation to seek out the truth). But as Dignitatis Humanae says, * “However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.”* It’s a good read and I strongly recommend it for understanding the Church’s thinking on this.

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.

Sometimes they were unjust punishments. Not every application of capital punishment is just, and it was very overused with heretics. The Albigensians are really the only group I can think of where a heretical group was truly disturbing the just order of society. Of course that’s just my opinion, but it’s not too merciful to just burn heretics.

That to me seems wrong.

Apologizing for injustice isn’t wrong.

BTW if this was still commonplace I’d be dead.

 

[Jaberwocky]

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.

I think you should also read my post with the equal respect and care you presume I should give to yours.

Why?

Because my point to you was that the Church can decide to change her stance toward the world today. That is fine. But what is unreasonable to do is look back and say what we said was right then is actually wrong and therefore we apologize. That is nonsensical.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Is it though? No one can be forced into believing the truth through external forces. You can’t force faith on anyone; even if you try, the person/people/whatever won’t actually believe–you’ll end up with a bunch of people who wink and nod about their faith just to avoid persecution.

The point of executing heretics was not to force them to believe. It was to stop the spread of heresy and act in the same way capital punishment does as a remedial punishment i.e. make the heretic take a very hard look and repent faster given that their life is about to end.

So this idea that they were executed to force them to convert is not exactly true.

 

[triumphguy]

The point of executing heretics was not to force them to believe. It was to stop the spread of heresy and act in the same way capital punishment does as a remedial punishment i.e. make the heretic take a very hard look and repent faster given that their life is about to end.

So this idea that they were executed to force them to convert is not exactly true.

Didn’t work though did it.

e.g., Lutheranism grew swiftly.

All burning heretics does its turn them into martyrs, and makes their cause seem more noble.

 

[Jaberwocky]

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?

Yes! It makes the Church stances today to be in doubt as well. Perhaps we shouldn’t oppose same sex marriage for an example. For an example, maybe the right thing to do is allow it and then try to convert them to Christianity. Some years later, we might have an apology from the Church that her actions on this issue in these years was actually immoral.

Do you see the problem here? Basically, I was always under the impression that the Church cannot do such a thing. It’s true that the Church actually hasn’t gone and officially said what she did back in the day is wrong. But there have been unofficial statements and as you can see from this thread, many (like triumphguy) do think that this is a new official position i.e. executing heretics was ACTUALLY immoral.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Didn’t work though did it.

e.g., Lutheranism grew swiftly.

All burning heretics does its turn them into martyrs, and makes their cause seem more noble.

For all we know, every single one of the Lutherans executed repented and were saved. For all we know, every single one of the Lutherans killed saved many thousands of Catholics from falling in to the error.

So what exactly is your point here? Even if the effectiveness was lacking, it still does not prove that the punishment is UNJUST. There is a problem with Church positions here that you conveniently choose to forget. It is true that the Church did hold that such executions were moral and indeed even necessary for that time. So to say it is immoral like you do is irreconcilable with such a position.

It is more likely you are mistaken in saying that it is immoral (which I think is the case) out of confusion as to why the Church doesn’t do it today.

 

[JM3]

Me: Do you ever feel like you are talking to a wall?

Me: Sometimes.

Me: It doesn’t trouble you?

Me: Some will read the words, or click the links, and, maybe, learn from it. Others will not. The information is there. What people do with it is their choice.

 

[triumphguy]

Jaberwocky - You don’t seem to get the argument that it’s not WHAT the Church opposed, but HOW the church opposed the “what” that is the issue.

Stop trying to make a problem where non exists.

As is cheerfully trotted out whenever Pope Francis is discussed - there have been sinful Popes and the Holy Spirit has not guided every action of every Pope.

The church has been sinful in its past

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#John Paul II’s Requests for Forgiveness
The Church is invited to “become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children.” She “acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters” and encourages them “to purify themselves, through repentance, of past errors and instances of infidelity, inconsistency and slowness to act.”(22) The responsibility of Christians for the evils of our time is likewise noted,(23) although the accent falls particularly on the solidarity of the Church of today with past faults. Some of these are explicitly mentioned, like the separation of Christians,(24) or the “methods of violence and intolerance” used in the past to evangelize.(25)

 

[Rau]

Yes! It makes the Church stances today to be in doubt as well. Perhaps we shouldn’t oppose same sex marriage for an example. For an example, maybe the right thing to do is allow it and then try to convert them to Christianity. Some years later, we might have an apology from the Church that her actions on this issue in these years was actually immoral.

Do you see the problem here? Basically, I was always under the impression that the Church cannot do such a thing. It’s true that the Church actually hasn’t gone and officially said what she did back in the day is wrong. But there have been unofficial statements and as you can see from this thread, many (like triumphguy) do think that this is a new official position i.e. executing heretics was ACTUALLY immoral.

There are many betters experts here than I who can explain the principles of infallible teaching, but my thoughts are:

1. the Church cannot err in its formal teaching to the people about the faith and morals;
2. the Church can err in innumerable ways in its own actions. The actions it takes don’t amount to teachings (though one might be forgiven for thinking that actions serve as an example of what is right!). Consider the undeniably wrong actions of Bishops to conceal the heinous acts of some wayward priests - clearly that was wrong, but the Church was not, by virtue of those actions, teaching that religious paedophiles should be protected from the law!
3. where the Church has erred and harmed others, an apology is appropriate, and not “nonsense” as you suggested earlier.

 

[triumphguy]

Me: Do you ever feel like you are talking to a wall?

Me: Sometimes.

Me: It doesn’t trouble you?

Me: Some will read the words, or click the links, and, maybe, learn from it. Others will not. The information is there. What people do with it is their choice.

It was a very good link!

 

[Rau]

I came across the following, which argues similarly to my Post #49. The context of the following extract is a discussion about the Church in relationship to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis, and how those events have been used by some to argue against the infallibility doctrine:

*…[the] real target seems to be the institution of the papacy, and their point of entry the doctrine of papal infallibility. If it was “the Church” and Pius XII that erred or sinned, they suggest, the doctrine cannot stand. **But surely they recall enough theology to know that none of the historical errors or misdeeds of which they complain falls within the scope of the infallibility doctrine. *As novelist Flannery O’Connor once succinctly put it: «Christ never said that the Church would be operated in a sinless or intelligent way, but that it would not teach error. This does not mean that each and every priest won’t teach error, but that the whole Church speaking through the Pope will not teach error in matters of faith».

The above extract is taken from vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-26_en.html which discusses public acts of contrition by the Church, and the “spin” to which they are often subjected.

 

[triumphguy]

I came across the following, which argues similarly to my Post #49. The context of the following extract is a discussion about the Church in relationship to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis, and how those events have been used by some to argue against the infallibility doctrine:

*…[the] real target seems to be the institution of the papacy, and their point of entry the doctrine of papal infallibility. If it was “the Church” and Pius XII that erred or sinned, they suggest, the doctrine cannot stand. **But surely they recall enough theology to know that none of the historical errors or misdeeds of which they complain falls within the scope of the infallibility doctrine. ***As novelist Flannery O’Connor once succinctly put it: «Christ never said that the Church would be operated in a sinless or intelligent way, but that it would not teach error. This does not mean that each and every priest won’t teach error, but that the whole Church speaking through the Pope will not teach error in matters of faith».

The above extract is taken from vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-26_en.html which discusses public acts of contrition by the Church, and the “spin” to which they are often subjected.

Great link. Worth reading:thumbsup:

 

[Jaberwocky]

There are many betters experts here than I who can explain the principles of infallible teaching, but my thoughts are:

1. the Church cannot err in its formal teaching to the people about the faith and morals;
2. the Church can err in innumerable ways in its own actions. The actions it takes don’t amount to teachings (though one might be forgiven for thinking that actions serve as an example of what is right!). Consider the undeniably wrong actions of Bishops to conceal the heinous acts of some wayward priests - clearly that was wrong, but the Church was not, by virtue of those actions, teaching that religious paedophiles should be protected from the law!
3. where the Church has erred and harmed others, an apology is appropriate, and not “nonsense” as you suggested earlier.

So since you admit you are not an expert, I will presume to speak a little more boldly here.

The Church cannot contradict something that it held as JUST before at a later time.

Now it is clear to me that you cannot seem to see why this is a problem. That is why I presented to you the case of opposition to gay marriage. The opposition itself is not doctrine. So by your logic, we should not expect such opposition to be constant either. See the absurdity?

The problem here is not that you do not understand Church teaching. The problem here is that you do not understand what it logically means to accept Church teaching or for the Church to teach. If the sense of what a Church has taught can change overtime, then there is a major problem. This is not coming from ME but from Popes and Saints themselves.

Issue on pedophiles you bring up has nothing to do with teaching but “procedure”. There has been no ruling that the procedure was JUST at any point in time. But with this matter under discussion, it was held by the Church and the faithful that it is a JUST punishment.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Jaberwocky - You don’t seem to get the argument that it’s not WHAT the Church opposed, but HOW the church opposed the “what” that is the issue.

Stop trying to make a problem where non exists.

As is cheerfully trotted out whenever Pope Francis is discussed - there have been sinful Popes and the Holy Spirit has not guided every action of every Pope.

The church has been sinful in its past

Triumphguy,

With all due respect, I think you are presuming too much about my inability to comprehend.

Let us first of all see if you actually understand Church teaching on a different yet related matter before we even get in to this controversial issue. Do you think the Church today says that Capital Punishment is an UNJUST punishment? If your answer is YES, then this discussion between you and me is over. Why? Because it highlights that you don’t understand Church teaching yourself so I am not exactly confident in taking your advise or opinion. You seem to not know what it means to say that a sense of how a teaching of the Church is understood cannot change over time to contradict its prior understanding.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I came across the following, which argues similarly to my Post #49. The context of the following extract is a discussion about the Church in relationship to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis, and how those events have been used by some to argue against the infallibility doctrine:

*…[the] real target seems to be the institution of the papacy, and their point of entry the doctrine of papal infallibility. If it was “the Church” and Pius XII that erred or sinned, they suggest, the doctrine cannot stand. **But surely they recall enough theology to know that none of the historical errors or misdeeds of which they complain falls within the scope of the infallibility doctrine. ***As novelist Flannery O’Connor once succinctly put it: «Christ never said that the Church would be operated in a sinless or intelligent way, but that it would not teach error. This does not mean that each and every priest won’t teach error, but that the whole Church speaking through the Pope will not teach error in matters of faith».

The above extract is taken from vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-26_en.html which discusses public acts of contrition by the Church, and the “spin” to which they are often subjected.

Perhaps you haven’t really thought about this but did you consider the fact that if the Church is that prone to error, THEN it does follow that even the apologies themselves maybe motivated by error?

Have you also not wondered what is the point of infallible doctrine and dogma if no one knows what they actually mean or which actions are JUST or MORAL at a given time in an infallible way? Even more problematically, what is the point of such doctrine when the sense of what they mean and how they pertain to actions can change in a contradictory way in the future?

You don’t seem to yet realize it but you are essentially destroying the very need for a Church in the first place in suggesting that there is nothing wrong with change in understanding as how it pertains to interpreting the moral/Just nature of actions.

 

[triumphguy]

Triumphguy,

With all due respect, I think you are presuming too much about my inability to comprehend.

Let us first of all see if you actually understand Church teaching on a different yet related matter before we even get in to this controversial issue. Do you think the Church today says that Capital Punishment is an UNJUST punishment? If your answer is YES, then this discussion between you and me is over. Why? Because it highlights that you don’t understand Church teaching yourself so I am not exactly confident in taking your advise or opinion. You seem to not know what it means to say that a sense of how a teaching of the Church is understood cannot change over time to contradict its prior understanding.

It was never Church doctrine to burn people.

I’ll miss our little chats.

 

[JM3]

CCC 2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

therealpresence.org/archives/Faith_and_Morals/Faith_and_Morals_006.htm

The Church holds that there are two reasons for inflicting punishment, namely “medicinal” and “vindictive.” The medicinal purpose is to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime and to protect society from his criminal behavior. The vindictive is to expiate for the wrong-doing perpetrated by the criminal. Thus, reparation is made to an offended God, and the disorder caused by the crime is expiated.

Equally important is the Pope’s insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore, “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp. 81-2).

Behind this declaration of the Vicar of Christ is a principle of our Catholic faith. Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium. There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.

Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the imposition of the death penalty. Certainly Christianity, like Christ, is to be merciful. Certainly Christians are to be kind and forgiving. But Christ is God. He is indeed loving and in fact is love. But He is also just. As a just God, He has a right to authorize civil authority to inflict capital punishment.

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

The purification of memory is thus “an act of courage and humility in recognizing the wrongs done by those who have borne or bear the name of Christian.” It is based on the conviction that because of “the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God, who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us.” John Paul II adds: “As the successor of Peter, I ask that in this year of mercy the Church, strong in the holiness which she receives from her Lord, should kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters.”(1) In reiterating that “Christians are invited to acknowledge, before God and before those offended by their actions, the faults which they have committed,” the Pope concludes, “Let them do so without seeking anything in return, but strengthened only by ‘the love of God which has been poured into our hearts’ (Rom 5:5).”(2)

So why on earth is there an apology?

What “apology” are you talking about? I see no link or refrence to an apology about burning heretics.

 

[Jaberwocky]

CCC 2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

therealpresence.org/archives/Faith_and_Morals/Faith_and_Morals_006.htm

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

What “apology” are you talking about? I see no link or refrence to an apology about burning heretics.

If your point here is that burning heretics is indeed a valid punishment, why is it that users such as triumphguy continue to say something else?

 

[Jaberwocky]

It was never Church doctrine to burn people.

I’ll miss our little chats.

To enforce capital punishment for a particular case is not Church doctrine. The fact that it is JUST IS Church doctrine. This sense was very much understood to be valid for burning of heretics as well.

If by chats you mean to promote the idea of a change of doctrine or sense of how they are interpreted to match your current sensibilities, then thank God for that!

 

[JM3]

What “apology” are you talking about? I see no link or refrence to an apology about burning heretics.

If your point here is that burning heretics is indeed a valid punishment, why is it that users such as triumphguy continue to say something else?

The point of the question is, what evidence do you have that the Church ordered and carried out the burning of heretics and then apologized for it?

Whether burning heretics is a valid punishment, or not, is irrelevant. The Church has always taught that the civil authority has the right and the duty to use capital punishment, as shown in my previous post.