Why does the Church apologize today for burning heretics?

[CrossofChrist]

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

“I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus” - Pope JPII

 

[triumphguy]

Here’s an important document:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, DIGNITATIS HUMANAE, ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups or of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” (Dignitatis humanae, 2)

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

And
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/mennonite-conference-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20110324_mennonite_en.html#_ftnref27

the Catholic Church renounces the claim to be a “state” church in any and every context. Protestants are no longer addressed as heretics, but as separated sisters and brothers in Christ, even while there are continuing disagreements, and while visible unity has not yet been achieved. It was this “Declaration” as well as other important documents of the Second Vatican Council that contributed significantly to dialogues such as this one. In light of these changes, new possibilities for relating to one another are becoming possible.

1. Catholics affirm that the “Declaration on Religious Freedom” represents a development in doctrine that has strong foundations in Scripture and tradition.29 The “Declaration” states that

“In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel, or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.”30

 

[opus101]

Hello,

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

…So why on earth is there an apology?

Can you give a reference to these “apologies”? I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about. Like some others have said, it was governments that did this…are you thinking of a particular apology by a Pope, or just apologies in general from others…For some reason I’ve missed out on all of this. I don’t remember any apologies.

 

[Rau]

Can you give a reference to these “apologies”? I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about. Like some others have said, it was governments that did this…are you thinking of a particular apology by a Pope, or just apologies in general from others…For some reason I’ve missed out on all of this. I don’t remember any apologies.

That’s been asked a number of times; the only response I’ve seen is a couple of posts above and comprises:

• In 1999, Pope John Paul II expressed “deep regret for the cruel death inflicted” on Hus.*

You can follow up the references included in this Wikipaedia article if you wish to see more:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II

As Pope, he [JPII] officially made public apologies for over 100 of these supposed wrongdoings, including:[2][3][4][5]
The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church[2][3][4][5]
The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).[2][3][4][5]
Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).[2][3][4][5]
The Church’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).[2][3][4][5]
The injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to “every woman”).[2][3][4][5]
The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)[2][3][4][5]
**For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). **When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church’s reformers, and acknowledged that “independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation’s moral education.” It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.[2][3][4][5]
For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).[2][3][4][5]
For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. (4 May 2001, to the Patriarch of Constantinople).[2][3][4][5]

On 20 November 2001, from a laptop in the Vatican, Pope John Paul II sent his first e-mail apologising for the Catholic sex abuse cases, the Church-backed “Stolen Generations” of Aboriginal children in Australia, and to China for the behaviour of Catholic missionaries in colonial times.[6]

 

[Jaberwocky]

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

Oh I certainly have And you might want to investigate what constitutes a heretic. What you accuse me of, even if true, does not make me a heretic.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Here’s an important document:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, DIGNITATIS HUMANAE, ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

And
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/mennonite-conference-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20110324_mennonite_en.html#_ftnref27

What is important I think is that you and many others who want to wave DIGNITATIS HUMANAE in the way you do should first answer Aquinas and point out what is wrong with what he says.

He does not in anyway say that man has no dignity or presume such a thing to arrive at the conclusion he does. It should also be reminded that you cannot have doctrinal development that contradicts prior sense of doctrine (something that most people do not seem to understand quiet well).

Here is the link to my post where Aquinas quiet nicely justified the intolerance of heretics.

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

So now if anyone wants to object, please do so by pointing out errors in his arguments.

 

[Jaberwocky]

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.

Damn, St. Thomas Aquinas should be revoked his credentials in Theology for missing such obvious statements eh?

 

[Genesis315]

According to Dignitatis Humanae, religious liberty is limited. According to the CCC, the limitations are tied to the needs of the common good. If heresy is damaging to the common good (and the Catholic concept of the common good includes the spiritual well-being of society), then it can be forcibly suppressed, with even death if the harm to society is grave enough.

When the entire society was Catholic, threats to that unity and to the authority of both the State and Church had the potential to threaten the very survival of that society. Heretics also often led rebellions causing much blood shed.

There were no doubt abuses which led to unjust deaths (just like there are in all justice systems), and the severeity of certain threats may have been misjudged sometimes, but the principles applied were sound, IMO. I don’t think it was sinful in all cases and the Church has in the past definitively condemned the idea that is absolutely sinful in all cases to punish heresy with death (Leo X, Exsurge Domine, error 33). That being said, given certain circumstances it would certainly be unjustified.

 

[TimothyH]

Damn, St. Thomas Aquinas should be revoked his credentials in Theology for missing such obvious statements eh?

While the Summa is a masterwork, it is not an infallible document and the Church never said that everything in it is correct, nor were the co-authors, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, exercising infallibility when they wrote it.

There are things in the Summa which the Church later rejected.

-Tim-

 

[JamesATyler]

Damn, St. Thomas Aquinas should be revoked his credentials in Theology for missing such obvious statements eh?

I don’t think that Thomas is greater than Jesus. Jesus said it very plainly and that’s they way the Church teaches today. It’s obvious to me that they were wrong. gasp

 

[janeway529]

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

Take the case of St. Joan of Arc, for example. She was burned at the stake for heresy, but it was really due to political reasons and a bishop’s vendetta. When her mother successfully brought her case to the pope, Pope Callixtus III reversed the decision.

 

[Jaberwocky]

While the Summa is a masterwork, it is not an infallible document and the Church never said that everything in it is correct, nor were the co-authors, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, exercising infallibility when they wrote it.

There are things in the Summa which the Church later rejected.

-Tim-

Obviously. But, the point here is that most people think and pretend that St. Thomas did not know the Scripture passages they know.

Also, to reject a reasonable claim, one has to present reasonable arguments. Simply saying “this is how it is now” is not an argument.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I don’t think that Thomas is greater than Jesus. Jesus said it very plainly and that’s they way the Church teaches today. It’s obvious to me that they were wrong. gasp

Oh for sure. The problem though is that you assume you know Jesus better than St. Thomas Aquinas (which is fine). But the issue is that unlike St. Thomas Aquinas, you are yet to present a coherent argument against what he has said. All you have said so far is on how you interpret one single set of passages of Jesus.

It could well be thought that you have fallen in the trap of confirmation bias and cherry picked the Bible to construct a very fluffy and cuddly Jesus when the real person of Jesus is very different and also stands for JUSTICE!!!

 

[oldcelt]

The church apologizing was an acknowledgement of injustice (killing people for not believing as you believe) and a toxic relationship with secular authorities. The church wisely is no longer openly involved in this type of activity, but it is still happening. Tin horn dictators throughout the centuries have never shied away from killing those that oppose them.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Take the case of St. Joan of Arc, for example. She was burned at the stake for heresy, but it was really due to political reasons and a bishop’s vendetta. When her mother successfully brought her case to the pope, Pope Callixtus III reversed the decision.

We are talking of abuses of it. One can abuse Capital Punishment, Alcohol etc. That does not mean they are EVIL.

But you make a possible point that perhaps explains the apology in a different way. The Church did not apologize for the act of executing heretics but for the specific examples of injustice like that of Joan of Arc. That I think is a very reasonable view and does make quiet a lot of sense.

 

[Jaberwocky]

The church apologizing was an acknowledgement of injustice (killing people for not believing as you believe) and a toxic relationship with secular authorities. The church wisely is no longer openly involved in this type of activity, but it is still happening. Tin horn dictators throughout the centuries have never shied away from killing those that oppose them.

There is no INJUSTICE in being intolerant toward Heretics. St. Thomas explains that in his Summa and the Church authorities had said it many times when accused of the same thing.

 

[oldcelt]

There is no INJUSTICE in being intolerant toward Heretics. St. Thomas explains that in his Summa and the Church authorities had said it many times when accused of the same thing.

Citing the opinions of others does not alter the facts.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Citing the opinions of others does not alter the facts.

Well, your lack of any reasonable objection doesn’t help either

 

[CrossofChrist]

What is important I think is that you and many others who want to wave DIGNITATIS HUMANAE in the way you do should first answer Aquinas and point out what is wrong with what he says.

What’s wrong with turning to Dignitatis Humanae?

 

[triumphguy]

Here’s a good (and serious) article:
Dignitatis Humanae and the Catholic Human Rights ‘Revolutuion’ by Dr. Samuel Gregg
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2876