Why shouldn't heretics be burned?

[Rence]

More precisely, Pope Leo X condemned Luther for saying that burning heretics was against the will of the Spirit.

It says this:

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars],** and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly **and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

But surely Catholics are not required to believe that this is infallible?

If this is a statement made about faith and morals, then it’s infallible.

Yes, although by that time the Church was not pushing for the execution of heretics but merely the restriction of their ability to spread their beliefs publicly, as far as I know. Certainly no country was still executing heretics at this point. Some Catholics may have continued to see this as a realistic option should Catholicism once again dominate society–at least, Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson (in his 1911 novel Dawn of All) describes a future Catholic society in which the execution of heretics is once again on the books, though only an extremely committed heretic can be executed, since heretics can avoid execution by formally leaving the Church! (This website reports that Msgr. Benson did not consider the society in Dawn of All to be an ideal one, as I initially concluded from reading the book.)

If there was ever an Inquisition, I suspect many people would just leave the Church. It’s a different time afterall. People won’t put up with that nonsense today.

Well, history can do that to you. My advisor in grad school once remarked to me that it’s hard for a historian to convert to anything, because “we know where the bodies are buried.”

However, I think you need to bear in mind that most Catholics don’t consider these statements infallible.

I think most Catholics don’t know what is infallible or not, and if it doesn’t suit them, they don’t care whether or not it is infallible. For example, they disregard the Church’s teachings on marriage and birth control, and Mass attendence.

Also, you need to look at these things in their historical context. I don’t think that makes them right, but it does help understand why devout and even holy people (St. Thomas More, for instance, or Aquinas) could err in this particular way.

It doesn’t help me personally to look at their historical context. Either the Church is unable to err, or it is able to err. There is no erring during one time, but not erring another time. I’m sorry if I hold them to a higher standard, but since they insist we do, they will be held to a higher standard. They can’t have it both ways.

I am very sorry if I have unsettled your faith (I think I am the person who pointed you to Exsurge Domine), but I think you need to consider the possibility that the problem isn’t with the basic Catholic claims but with the overly triumphalist way some Catholics interpret those claims.

Don’t worry, you haven’t unsettled me And I’m not even sure it was you who led me to Exsurge Domine. Besides, if it’s the truth, it’s the truth. Who is to blame, the one who led another to the truth, or the ones who were responsible for what is the truth?

 

[Debora123]

The reason is because Saint Thomas’ view and writings are quite persuadable. Though it is despicable, that does not mean we cannot talk about it. That being said, there will be people who disagree with you. There will be people who bring forth a lot of credible evidence to support their claim. Now, as for MY personal opinion? No. They shouldn’t be “burned”. But they MUST be disciplined.

Many people have only left posts that don’t even contribute to the topic. Instead they write about how the thread is bad and blame the OP for being pro-Burning, even though he said he wasn’t.

Some people are more willing to believe a Saint (especially one like Aquinas) over a contemporary of theirs who might not know as much as him. There is nothing wrong with that.

Not everything can be rainbows and fluffy bunny wabbits

~ Pius :knight1:

This is absolutely disgusting and I am completely speechless.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

This is absolutely disgusting and I am completely speechless.

I do hope you are not misunderstanding me . I mean no harm to anyone. Heretics included. I am sorry if you were offended, though I see nothing to actually be offended about.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

This is absolutely disgusting and I am completely speechless.

He’s kinda young Debora…he’ll learn as he gets older that you just can’t force people to agree with the things you do. They either do, or they don’t. Burning heretics made more Protestants, not less. These things happen for a reason, the first one being that no one likes a bully, and fear of bullying makes people leave for greener pastures. If you give people a reason to look for greener pastures, they will. And I think you’ll agree: it’s as simple as that in the real world.

 

[TimothyH]

But what do I know? I am a 16 year old Altar Boy from Boston. I’ll leave it up to the Holy Father.

That pride of yours is what needs to be burned.

-Tim-

 

[Rence]

The reason is because Saint Thomas’ view and writings are quite persuadable. Though it is despicable, that does not mean we cannot talk about it. That being said, there will be people who disagree with you. There will be people who bring forth a lot of credible evidence to support their claim. Now, as for MY personal opinion? No. They shouldn’t be “burned”. But they MUST be disciplined.

Many people have only left posts that don’t even contribute to the topic. Instead they write about how the thread is bad and blame the OP for being pro-Burning, even though he said he wasn’t.

Some people are more willing to believe a Saint (especially one like Aquinas) over a contemporary of theirs who might not know as much as him. There is nothing wrong with that.

Not everything can be rainbows and fluffy bunny wabbits

Ok, Rainbows and Fluffy Bunny Wabbits, I’ll bite: exactly what things do you think people MUST be disciplined? How (very specifically) would you like them to be disciplined in your Catholic Utopia, and how specificially, will it be enforced and by whom? In other words, I would like you to name a few example “Catholic” crimes, with your recommended MUST discipline as a result, and how that discipline is to be delivered, and who will deliver the discipline.

 

[jmj1984]

Ditto. I am at a loss of words here.

Really people? Killing someone in the most painful way possible for having different religious beliefs?? This is pure evil masked behind “Christianity,” and this whole thread needs to be deleted.

Oh give it a rest will you, no ones actually suggesting we should burn herectics. Instead we’re trying to establish why St Thomas Aquinas is wrong, these kind of hard questions need to be addressed not brushed under the carpet.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

That pride of yours is what needs to be burned.

-Tim-

Pride is terrible, indeed. Though I wasn’t being sarcastic. I’m not an expert in these things. Hell, I’m not an expert at anything. That is why I opted to leave it up to the Holy Father.

He’s kinda young Debora…he’ll learn as he gets older that you just can’t force people to agree with the things you do. They either do, or they don’t. Burning heretics made more Protestants, not less. These things happen for a reason, the first one being that no one likes a bully, and fear of bullying makes people leave for greener pastures. If you give people a reason to look for greener pastures, they will. And I think you’ll agree: it’s as simple as that in the real world.

I don’t want to force people to agree with me. Though I sincerely appreciate you defending me, I just want to make it clear that I DON’T want to burn heretics. It is not a nice thing to do, by any means. Certainly not charitable, either. And I agree with your claim that it made more protestants than less. Granted, you don’t have proof, but I still agree as it seems correct enough an assumption.

Ok, Rainbows and Fluffy Bunny Wabbits, I’ll bite: exactly what things do you think people MUST be disciplined? How (very specifically) would you like them to be disciplined in your Catholic Utopia, and how specificially, will it be enforced and by whom? In other words, I would like you to name a few example “Catholic” crimes, with your recommended MUST discipline as a result, and how that discipline is to be delivered, and who will deliver the discipline.

Excommunication for those who the Church deem it necessary, and Pastoral advice for those who need it. Carried out by your Parish Priest. A few examples to incur excommunication can be: Someone who assalts the Pope, desecrates the Eucharist, apostasy, schism, violating the Seal of Confession, procuring an abortion, et cetera. This isn’t my “Catholic Utopia”. Man isn’t perfect, I know that. Ideally, I believe excommunications are delivered from the Diocesan Bishop or perhaps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As I said, I’m not an expert. Nor do I pretend to be one.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

Excommunication for those who the Church deem it necessary, and Pastoral advice for those who need it. Carried out by your Parish Priest. A few examples to incur excommunication can be: Someone who assalts the Pope, desecrates the Eucharist, apostasy, schism, violating the Seal of Confession, procuring an abortion, et cetera. This isn’t my “Catholic Utopia”. Man isn’t perfect, I know that. Ideally, I believe excommunications are delivered from the Diocesan Bishop or perhaps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As I said, I’m not an expert. Nor do I pretend to be one.

~ Pius :knight1:

I have news for you: Those who assault the pope already incur an automatic excommunication according to canon law, as well as those who procure abortions according to the CCC.

Those who desecrate the Eucharist also are excommunicated. Those who participate in schism have already left the Church…so they have excommunicated themselves. I don’t know what happens to priests who violate the Seal of Confession, but I do know there are serious reprucussions for doing so.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I have news for you: Those who assault the pope already incur an automatic excommunication according to canon law, as well as those who procure abortions according to the CCC.

Those who desecrate the Eucharist also are excommunicated. Those who participate in schism have already left the Church…so they have excommunicated themselves. I don’t know what happens to priests who violate the Seal of Confession, but I do know there are serious reprucussions for doing so.

That isn’t news for me, I know what it is. I’m not demanding for something more than what it already is. But it should be done on a wider basis. And yes everything I said are excommunicatable acts. They are excommunicatable: Latae Sententiae. But sadly, many people who are genuinely excommunicated latae sententiae - don’t even know it. This is most prevalent, however, among freemasons.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

That isn’t news for me, I know what it is. I’m not demanding for something more than what it already is. But it should be done on a wider basis. And yes everything I said are excommunicatable acts. They are excommunicatable: Latae Sententiae. But sadly, many people who are genuinely excommunicated latae sententiae - don’t even know it. This is most prevalent, however, among freemasons.

~ Pius :knight1:

Unfortunately, I know a freemason who is Catholic and he just doesn’t care. He disregards the Church’s teaching regarding Masons…

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Unfortunately, I know a freemason who is Catholic and he just doesn’t care. He disregards the Church’s teaching regarding Masons…

Unfortunately, I know quite a few. Including a Grand Knight in the Knights of Columbus. He keeps it a secret, however.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

Unfortunately, I know quite a few. Including a Grand Knight in the Knights of Columbus. He keeps it a secret, however.

~ Pius :knight1:

Ok, so what do you think should happen to these guys?

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Ok, so what do you think should happen to these guys?

Excommunication. Local Parishes should be notified, as well.Even if a Priest doesn’t agree with the excommunication, the Church deems it necessary, and out of obediance he should follow through with it.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

Excommunication. Local Parishes should be notified, as well.Even if a Priest doesn’t agree with the excommunication, the Church deems it necessary, and out of obediance he should follow through with it.

~ Pius :knight1:

They are already not in communion…

 

[Elixir]

Meanwhile in the 21st century Bishops are trying to help keep deathrow inmates from being executed.

 

[Rence]

Meanwhile in the 21st century Bishops are trying to help keep deathrow inmates from being executed.

 

[Debora123]

Meanwhile in the 21st century Bishops are trying to help keep deathrow inmates from being executed.

Yep.

 

[Bookcat]

The times were what they were in so far as the legal system went. Although it was advanced beyond the Germanic.

That period of history was quite difficult. Heck a person could be executed in some places by the King for destroying his shrubbery!

And actually…

The judicial system in the Church was actually better. Those who were caught for other crimes in the State prisons would blaspheme etc to get transferred to the ecclesiastical courts cause they knew they would be treated better.

It was the State the burned heretics. For it was seen as being dangerous to the common good as well as a danger to souls. For example those heretics who condemned marriage and having children…was seen as a direct attack on society.

(Oh and by the way one of the alleged quotes up there was about the burning of books! not heretics…book burning can be a rather good thing still)

Also by the way Protestants burned too…twas the times. Not only heretics in their eyes but witches. (the Church dismissed such hysteria that swept through certain Protestant lands)

 

[fakename]

You have certainly seen such an argument on this thread. See my post 64. You may disagree with my argument, but it certainly is an argument

If you find it unconvincing, I would be interested to hear your reasons.

Edwin

I did respond to some of your concerns (why doesn’t anyone notice or reply to my posts?), and I’ll try to respond to the rest.

Now one thing I never responded to, was the argument that the premise wasn’t proved so that jeopardizes the rest of the argument. There are two ways around this: 1) Now even granted that the premise isn’t proved there is still another argument, that can be adduced: that the holy doctrine is better than life (As proved by the martyrs), and so it is better than any living man. So if it is better than present life itself, then it must be better than the any of the living and heretics are living men so it is better than their lives. Further one defends the most precious thing -indeed one justly defends one’s own life. But the most precious things are the holy doctrines. So just as one defends one’s own life by taking life, so much more justified is someone in defending that which is better than one’s life. And what is better than one’s life is sacred doctrine. So by combining these two arguments one can deduce that killing the heretic is okay. And if anyone denies this, then one denies that martyrdom is always good, which is contradictory.

there are problems with this argument though. For instance it also justifies killing non-believers.

1. But going back to what Aquinas wrote, I suppose that if I were Aquinas, I would defend the counterfeiting-heresy analogy by saying that on two fronts the analogy works. Firstly, you, people of the 21st century must believe that something is less than truth. Perhaps, you believe that life is less than truth (since again one gives up life for truth in martyrdom and everyone believes that martyrdom is always a good thing). So if that’s true, then one would not value truth over life if you didn’t execute heretics -either or. So even though the medieval world was too strict regarding counterfeiting, it is not true that a similar analogy can’t be created in this time between the relative importance of truth and life.

Secondly, I think Aquinas would also focus on what he wrote just afterwords: ''which supports temporal life. " That is, money supports temporal life and since one is willing to kill for temporal life, one should kill for that which supports an even higher good -the future life. What supports the future life? Catholicism. So if you disregard the notion of counterfeiting, the other notion of “any support for temporal life” would still exist and from this Aquinas’s argument takes its gravity -it juxtaposes the importance of a support for temporal life with a support for eternal life.