Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

[Rau]

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.

It was not Church teaching that is reflected in the things that concern you. Only you say that it was. If it were a teaching, it would be documented as such. Are there not a number of like matters that you could identify, and show us the documented teaching, that has since been changed?

That same sex persons cannot partake the sacrament of marriage, that their sexual relations are sinful, are teachings. We can use these as a test case and see if this changes in the future.

 

[Rau]

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.

The church teaching on capital punishment cannot be summarised as a statement that “it is Just”. We could assess justness or otherwise given the facts of an individual case.

 

[BellsMom]

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.

I know exactly what you are getting at. I have thought of this often except in terms of “moral” instead of “just”.

The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the church was wrong and has changed it’s teaching but can’t openly admit it because it goes against the whole 2k years of unchanged teaching thing. So they play word games and distort the meaning of the most basic words like “change” to do some linguistic gymnastics to explain why something that changed didn’t really change.

I think that were it not for some silly idea that “unchanged = right”, the church would be screaming from the rafters that capital punishment is absolutely wrong and that the punishments inflicted on the persons of the past for offenses against the church were grossly immoral.

 

[Jaberwocky]

It was not Church teaching that is reflected in the things that concern you. Only you say that it was. If it were a teaching, it would be documented as such. Are there not a number of like matters that you could identify, and show us the documented teaching, that has since been changed?

That same sex persons cannot partake the sacrament of marriage, that their sexual relations are sinful, are teachings. We can use these as a test case and see if this changes in the future.

There is no doctrine that says “we should oppose same sex marriages by stopping it from being legalized”. Does it mean that the Church is going to apologize for it later on? Does it mean that we are wrong to oppose it now?

Please, if I may ask with respect, do take the time to critically assault what you are about to write yourself before you post it to me. That way I do not have to repeat myself.

Secondly, the fact that it the Church held the sense that it was indeed correct to burn heretics and it is a just punishment is clear from reading anything from that time period (including the Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted).

Now there is obviously a deeper problem here. It seems to me like you do not understand what it means for the Church to proclaim a Dogma or doctrine. You have somehow created a trench between what is proclaimed and what it is understood to say as pertaining to by the faithful.

So whether or not a direct dogmatic pronouncement was made on burning heretics is not important. What matters is that the Church had defended the practice as being compatible with the faith. That means that the Church decided it was a correct practice according to its existing doctrine and dogma. Not once, but many times as objections were raised in the past till very recently. Now for you to simply say “oh that sense was wrong” causes a major a problem. Admittedly by your own words you are not an expert but it shouldn’t be too hard to see if you think about it. If the Church can simply change the sense of what it teaches, then it does follow that infallibility is not even important. Each and every person can just postulate whatever doctrine and dogma means at any given time and the only issue is about gaining consensus.

Since today the consensus is opposed to burning heretics, the practice itself is claimed to be unjust.

 

[Jaberwocky]

The church teaching on capital punishment cannot be summarised as a statement that “it is Just”. We could assess justness or otherwise given the facts of an individual case.

Now you are arguing semantics. When a person says Capital Punishment is an acceptable punishment, it is implied that the person is found guilty of the crime. Obviously we are not speaking of applying Capital Punishment to a falsely accused.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I know exactly what you are getting at. I have thought of this often except in terms of “moral” instead of “just”.

The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the church was wrong and has changed it’s teaching but can’t openly admit it because it goes against the whole 2k years of unchanged teaching thing. So they play word games and distort the meaning of the most basic words like “change” to do some linguistic gymnastics to explain why something that changed didn’t really change.

I think that were it not for some silly idea that “unchanged = right”, the church would be screaming from the rafters that capital punishment is absolutely wrong and that the punishments inflicted on the persons of the past for offenses against the church were grossly immoral.

Thank you. At least someone understands what I am trying to say.

I wouldn’t go so far to say that the Church has changed though. I can see a legitimate reason for not burning heretics today for an example. Some of these reasons being the fact that the Church is no longer in power and heretics are dime a dozen at which point it defeats the purpose to burn them and get rid of them.

What I think the problem is when people claim that the Church doesn’t do these things because now we have become enlightened and the Church has come to realize her errors. That to me is when the whole idea of changing the sense of teaching comes in to play.

So I feel that apologizing for the past does not make sense because it makes people think the Church has actually changed her position when she honestly hasn’t. Those practices were JUST (moral) and remains JUST (moral) today. She has just chosen to not exercise them given the state of the world and perhaps wants to try some other tactic which is actually fine because not there is no contradiction of the prior sense.

But most people here want to say other things. They want to claim that we have suddenly realized the love and mercy of Jesus (as if for 2000 years all the saints and Popes were oblivious to it) and therefore now we are changing these things.

 

[Rau]

Now you are arguing semantics. When a person says Capital Punishment is an acceptable punishment, it is implied that the person is found guilty of the crime. Obviously we are not speaking of applying Capital Punishment to a falsely accused.

Not at all. The relevant church teaching is readily available. Perhaps you could link to it here, then explain why you think I’m arguing semantics.

 

[JamesATyler]

I don’t think I agree that the people that taught that burning heretics were never wrong. Let’s not forget that we are talking about real, flesh and blood, living, breathing, imperfect creatures. I don’t think I have ever heard that any of these creatures are guaranteed to be infallible except for the Pope, when he speaking under very specific circumstances. As far as I know, that has not occurred but a couple of times and they didn’t address capital punishment of any kind. So I do not think I am bound by any means to believe that those people were just. I just plain think they were wrong in the measure that they took against people that didn’t believe everything 100% correctly. I think they were right to oppose heresy but wrong to burn people alive. It’s cruel. I am 40 years old and in that short space of time I can already see how difficult it can be to believe everything correctly. That’s just simple observation. Of course people are prone to error! Of course these same people may believe the error with all their strength. It happens all day long, every day of the week, all around the world. It common. It’s common today and I’m sure it was common in their days.

So what, if they were the Church authorities? Does that make them all knowing, free from error, and worthy of imitation forever? What about what Jesus taught? He specifically said that we should treat our enemies with love. Are you going to say that maybe, just maybe, lighting someone on fire can be love in some circumstances? Please man. That’s deranged, and if those people thought they were loving their enemies then they were also deranged, not just in error, but they were twisted and evil. And you should wake up and realized that there are twisted and evil people attending the Church and some of them will be priests. Your idea of the Church is pure fantasy. It’s a nice thought, but it just isn’t real, to think that the Church people can never be wrong.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Not at all. The relevant church teaching is readily available. Perhaps you could link to it here, then explain why you think I’m arguing semantics.

Here it is

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

As you can see, the acceptable nature of the punishment (Capital Punishment) is acknowledged given that the responsibility is determined.

 

[JM3]

 

[Rau]

Here it is

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

As you can see, the acceptable nature of the punishment (Capital Punishment) is acknowledged given that the responsibility is determined.

It says a bit more than that, but we can all read. But note there is no blank statement “capital punishment is Just”, and my prior post was not just “semantics”.

 

[Jaberwocky]

It says a bit more than that, but we can all read. But note there is no blank statement “capital punishment is Just”, and my prior post was not just “semantics”.

Huh? If I may cut to the chase and ask directly, I remember you mentioning that you were by no means an expert. Yet here you seem to make it sound like you are.

If you want to get some good clarification on Capital Punishment, I suggest you take it up with the user Ender. He knows the subject inside out and will give you enough quotes from Church teaching to that of saints to show that it was claimed to be JUST (if that is your problem right now).

As far as what I know, I am afraid I see no reason to think you are going to solve the question I am asking. So thank you for your time but I am going to have to wait for someone else or presume that you simply mistaken in saying that the Church actually sees burning heretics as wrong to begin with (which I am more inclined to think now).

 

[bsroufek]

It’s obvious that Jesus didn’t and doesn’t want us to physically kill those who disagree with or disbelieve the Church. He even stopped St. Peter when he struck the High Priest’s servant on the ear, Matt 26:52 “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.’”

Also, the Ten Commandments, which Jesus ratified, forbids murder.

 

[Rau]

There is no doctrine that says “we should oppose same sex marriages by stopping it from being legalized”. Does it mean that the Church is going to apologize for it later on? Does it mean that we are wrong to oppose it now?

I think we know the church teaching surrounding homosexuality. In all likelihood, states will enable same sex marriage (the civil marriage process). I do not see a future cause for any apology arising. The Church will not be introducing same sex marriage (in my view).

Secondly, the fact that it the Church held the sense that it was indeed correct to burn heretics and it is a just punishment is clear from reading anything from that time period (including the Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted).

I don’t take a view on the inquisitions and heretics as I don’t know the facts of history sufficiently. But for the sake of this debate, that’s not necessary. Now generally, do you agree that Church authorities are capable of acting badly, and of sinning? I do (and I note the Church authorities do to. This does not contradict the infallibility doctrine. The article I linked to earlier (and snipped an extract from) discusses this further.

Now there is obviously a deeper problem here. It seems to me like you do not understand what it means for the Church to proclaim a Dogma or doctrine.

I’m not aware of my failing in the above space. Perhaps you could set out what it means for the Church to proclaim a dogma, and how the church issues teachings so I may better understand?

So whether or not a direct dogmatic pronouncement was made on burning heretics is not important.

Actions can be (I don’t know if they were) sinful. Teachings can’t be inferred. They are explicit.

What matters is that the Church had defended the practice as being compatible with the faith. That means that the Church decided it was a correct practice according to its existing doctrine and dogma. Not once, but many times as objections were raised in the past till very recently. Now for you to simply say “oh that sense was wrong” causes a major a problem. Admittedly by your own words you are not an expert but it shouldn’t be too hard to see if you think about it. If the Church can simply change the sense of what it teaches, then it does follow that infallibility is not even important. Each and every person can just postulate whatever doctrine and dogma means at any given time and the only issue is about gaining consensus.

I think you confuse me with another poster. I didn’t make the argument you suggest.

 

[Jaberwocky]

It’s obvious that Jesus didn’t and doesn’t want us to physically kill those who disagree with or disbelieve the Church. He even stopped St. Peter when he struck the High Priest’s servant on the ear, Matt 26:52 “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.’”

Also, the Ten Commandments, which Jesus ratified, forbids murder.

You are forgetting my friend that murder is the killing of innocent. Let us also not act as if the Church was born yesterday. There have been greater Scripture readers than you and me who have said the heresy can be punished by execution.

Let us also not forget Scripture itself quotes Jesus as saying

‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. – Matthew 10:34

Let me quote St. Thomas Aquinas for you in summary

Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?

Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:24-25): “The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil.” Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle’s command.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:19): “There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you.” Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matthew 13:30) to suffer the cockle “to grow until the harvest,” i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.
**
On the contrary,** The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted.”

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already “subverted,” as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and “makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully,” as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), “to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.” A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his “spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.” Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.

 

[Rau]

Huh? If I may cut to the chase and ask directly, I remember you mentioning that you were by no means an expert. Yet here you seem to make it sound like you are.

If you want to get some good clarification on Capital Punishment, I suggest you take it up with the user Ender. He knows the subject inside out and will give you enough quotes from Church teaching to that of saints to show that it was claimed to be JUST (if that is your problem right now).

As far as what I know, I am afraid I see no reason to think you are going to solve the question I am asking. So thank you for your time but I am going to have to wait for someone else or presume that you simply mistaken in saying that the Church actually sees burning heretics as wrong to begin with (which I am more inclined to think now).

Funny how you like to get personal, and throw in a bit of obfuscation, rather than just stick to the elements of the debate.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Funny how you like to get personal, and throw in a bit of obfuscation, rather than just stick to the elements of the debate.

Rau,

I can see you are typing up a good response for me. But before or after you have done so, can you explain to me why St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong in his justification of not tolerating heretics?

I quoted his entire article from the Summa above to another poster. Do take your time but give me a good comprehensive response.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11304114&postcount=75

EDIT: I didn’t mean to get personal but I was just pointing out the issue in saying you are not an expert but continuing to make sweeping claims about what or what is not Church teaching. You have to admit that is a bit weird, right?

I apologize though because I can see how it would seem a bit offensive in hindsight.

 

[JamesATyler]

From your quote of Thomas Aquinas:

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, **wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: **after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

Here I quote the scripture and the Word of the Lord:

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times
Matthew 18:21-22

The truth is, our modern day leaders are better than Thomas Aquinas and that apostle. They lead us better, clearer, and straighter.

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

Interestingly enough the Church has found out that neither one works to well.

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

Maybe that’s not why they were executed, but the effect is the same: convert or die.

 

[JamesATyler]

You are forgetting my friend that murder is the killing of innocent. Let us also not act as if the Church was born yesterday. There have been greater Scripture readers than you and me who have said the heresy can be punished by execution.

Let us also not forget Scripture itself quotes Jesus as saying

‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. – Matthew 10:34

You’d better be careful. If you are interpreting this verse wrong, and teaching, you could make yourself a heretic. Investigate what that means.