Why shouldn't heretics be burned?

[fakename]

I know that they shouldn’t be, but I don’t know why since Aquinas’s reasons are persuasive:

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.”

So how does one argue against that section of the Summa or by what authority is Aquinas bested?

Let me link the section

newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

What we are discussing is under the heading “Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated”.

 

[Hokomai]

The Church has in recent years argued for the retention of laws under which homosexuals were imprisoned on the basis that the Church considered their actions unnatural. So I guess not much has changed, except that the loss of temporal power and influence has limited the Church’s tendencies in this direction, along with church leaders, influenced by democratic and enlightment values, no longer finding the extreme forms of oppression acceptable.

 

[DAAVEED1590]

Heretics should be told what they believe is wrong and asked to recant. If they refuse, they should be excomunicated and expunged from the Church. The only reason they were killed in the middle ages was to prevent them from tricking others into following their herecy, which i think is a good reason. Better one dead soul than one million. A murderer kills the body, but a heretic kills the soul.

However, on can argue that it is wrong to kill a heretic because we need to give them a chance to convert back to the true faith. However, oftentimes they had been given many chances to convert back and recant their herecies…

 

[John21652]

Good Lord, if we start now the fires will be so huge they’d light up the night sky for months! Besides, I’m not sure there’s enough wood left in the world for all these bonfires.

On a serious note, back in the days when they fried heretics, there was little separation between state and Church, so heresy was tantamount to treason and hence punsihable by death. What Aquinas was getting at, in my view, was a limit to tolerance. Intolerance, rightly, springs from indignation and in the modern world we are not encouraged to be indignant at the moral laxity of others. In fact, the bounds of tolerance have been stretched so far that moral laxity is now supposedly considered as the fulfillment of subjective desires and so none of anyone else’s business.

The trouble with the stretching of the moral boundaries to the extent they are now effectively means we no longer share a common morality. hence, society is fragmenting into self interested groups. Maybe Jerome was right.

 

[Debora123]

Heretics should be told what they believe is wrong and asked to recant. If they refuse, they should be excomunicated and expunged from the Church. The only reason they were killed in the middle ages was to prevent them from tricking others into following their herecy, which i think is a good reason. Better one dead soul than one million. A murderer kills the body, but a heretic kills the soul.

Committing murder is a heinous act and kills the murderer’s soul.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Good Lord, if we start now the fires will be so huge they’d light up the night sky for months! Besides, I’m not sure there’s enough wood left in the world for all these bonfires.

John’s usual wit.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Heretics should be told what they believe is wrong and asked to recant. If they refuse, they should be excomunicated and expunged from the Church. The only reason they were killed in the middle ages was to prevent them from tricking others into following their herecy, which i think is a good reason. Better one dead soul than one million. A murderer kills the body, but a heretic kills the soul.

However, on can argue that it is wrong to kill a heretic because we need to give them a chance to convert back to the true faith. However, oftentimes they had been given many chances to convert back and recant their herecies…

Ezekiel 33:7-9

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

7So thou, O son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: therefore thou shalt hear the word from my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me.

8When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.

9But if thou tell the wicked man, that he may be converted from his ways, and he be not converted from his way: he shall die in his iniquity: but thou hast delivered thy soul.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I know that they shouldn’t be, but I don’t know why since Aquinas’s reasons are persuasive:

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.”

So how does one argue against that section of the Summa or by what authority is Aquinas bested?

Let me link the section

newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

What we are discussing is under the heading “Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated”.

Burning a person is a bit painful.
At least you should give them a little fun before dying, for instance throwing them from an helicopter 2000 meters up, rolling in the Niagara falls, eating McDonald’s till they explode, seeing Donald Trump show or listen to heavy metal during 10 hours (maybe you would not need that much!).

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I know that they shouldn’t be, but I don’t know why since Aquinas’s reasons are persuasive:

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.”

So how does one argue against that section of the Summa or by what authority is Aquinas bested?

What we are discussing is under the heading “Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated”.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was VERY much persuasive. There was another thread on this topic, but it got a bit “hot” (pun - not intended). I think it must be understood, that when the Holy Mother Church did such acts, She did them at a time when (in some regards) they were morally acceptable, and even needed. That being said, it must be understood that in today’s society, at a time when heresy runs rampant, the faithful must be controlled in a different manner. It is a delicate topic indeed. However, it is my view that if the Church were to begin dealing with heretics in such a way, then She would be overwhelmed with anti-Catholic violence. But I also believe that the Church MUST tighten Her hold on Catholic nations (Ireland, Malta, Liechtenstein) and drive formally Catholic nations back to the Church (Spain, France, Germany). Some individuals are TRYING to get excommunicated. Thus, making excommunication a bit invalid in some cases.

However, still, heresy cannot be tolerated, and must be suppressed. At the expense of sounding radical, I must offer my agreement that it is better for one soul to be damned than a million.

On a serious note, back in the days when they fried heretics, there was little separation between state and Church, so heresy was tantamount to treason and hence punsihable by death. What Aquinas was getting at, in my view, was a limit to tolerance. Intolerance, rightly, springs from indignation and in the modern world we are not encouraged to be indignant at the moral laxity of others. In fact, the bounds of tolerance have been stretched so far that moral laxity is now supposedly considered as the fulfillment of subjective desires and so none of anyone else’s business.

The trouble with the stretching of the moral boundaries to the extent they are now effectively means we no longer share a common morality. hence, society is fragmenting into self interested groups. Maybe Jerome was right.

Separation of Church and State IS a heresy (an error). Religious tolerance (in other words, religious freedom) has also been condemned. (Though that latter point can be argued further using numerous encyclicals and syllabus’). I must also agree that it may seem morally acceptable to, in order to save the whole Body of Christ, to sever a diseased limb, so to speak. If a part of our Church may infect others, it must be swiftly taken care of.

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

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Julia_Mae]

Better one dead soul than one million…

That’s interesting. It’s exactly the reasoning Caiaphas used to justify killing Jesus.

 

[Gregarious]

Heretics should be told what they believe is wrong and asked to recant. If they refuse, they should be excomunicated and expunged from the Church. The only reason they were killed in the middle ages was to prevent them from tricking others into following their herecy, which i think is a good reason. Better one dead soul than one million. A murderer kills the body, but a heretic kills the soul.

However, on can argue that it is wrong to kill a heretic because we need to give them a chance to convert back to the true faith. However, oftentimes they had been given many chances to convert back and recant their herecies…

One can argue on many different lengths and still nothing would justify your strange ideas because it’s a fallacy, the end does not justify the means, two wrongs do not make a right, but above all, leaving that aside, what you propose is not in any way reminiscent of what Jesus preached.

And you want to be a priest, right.

 

[Gregarious]

Separation of Church and State IS a heresy (an error).

It’s not a heresy because it has nothing to do with it, tell me where you garnered this information from?

Using your line of thinking one could argue that John Paul II’s decision to ask a priest who was in politics in the USA to leave office was a heresy, in fact JPII was enforcing the separation so there would be no conflict of interest.

Separation of Church and state is a good thing and I don’t think the Church wills it to convene anymore either.

Some you haven’t stepped back to think if what you’re saying is in line with the teaching of the New Testament, you’re using some archaic reasoning by the Church from hundreds of years ago that the Church hasn’t resorted to either in the last few centuries.

 

[divinefaith]

Committing murder is a heinous act and kills the murderer’s soul.

Thanks for pointing out the evil of murder!

For anyone who supports this inhumane idea of killing heretics, I wonder if they would condone the massacre of people from different religious groups.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

It’s not a heresy because it has nothing to do with it, tell me where you garnered this information from?

Using your line of thinking one could argue that John Paul II’s decision to ask a priest who was in politics in the USA to leave office was a heresy, in fact JPII was enforcing the separation so there would be no conflict of interest.

Separation of Church and state is a good thing and I don’t think the Church wills it to convene anymore either.

Some you haven’t stepped back to think if what you’re saying is in line with the teaching of the New Testament, you’re using some archaic reasoning by the Church from hundreds of years ago that the Church hasn’t resorted to either in the last few centuries.

First off, even if something hasn’t been talked about for a while, or even if it is “archaic” it still remains a heresy. There is not a deadline that something that once was a heresy, stops being a heresy. Granted, my primary source is from 1870. Though this is around 140 years ago, it is still relevant. That source is an encyclical from Pius IX that I have been reading alot about (by that I mean, the different encyclicals and Allocutions that they are taken from).called the “Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX”. The relevance of the aforementioned syllabus can be argued against, however, I can also try (to the best of my ability, at least) to counter the argument. I do believe that the Syllabus is wquite relevant and evenuseful when dealing with the heresies listed. Though some of the words may need to be changed to some modern variation of the words, the overall impact of it - remains.

The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church.

The above error was condemned in Section VI and is number 55 out of 80 total errors condemned in the syllabus.

This particular condemnation is taken from the Allocution ‘Acerbissimum’ which is, sadly, not translated into English. Nor have I found it in Latin.

Though, I also have atleast one secondary (and somewhat indirect) source for the Church’s stance on the Separation of Church and State.

To also address why Blessed John Paul II demanded for Reverend Father Robert Drinan, SJ to step down, was probably to do with his support for abortion and his controversial call for Nixon’s resignation.

To spin all this back to the original topic, the Separation of Church and State is relevant when it comes to involving both when it has to do with the dealing with heretics and the heresies which they promote.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Thanks for pointing out the evil of murder!

For anyone who supports this inhumane idea of killing heretics, I wonder if they would condone the massacre of people from different religious groups.

It can, however, be argued that it is not murder. “Murder” is the unlawful killing of someone else, usually with premeditated malice or intent. Technically, this would not be murder if it was lawful. Then you could argue if it was morally lawful or legally lawful. But I’m not about to argue that, because that is certainly not a strong point of mine, so I’ll let someone else argue that if he wants to.

~ Pius :knight1:

Also, forgive me if I double post. I am a slow typer and I started my last post before divinefaith started his. Mea culpa.

 

[bethanysamuel]

I’ve never read a more disgusting thread. How can anyone condone burning someone alive. Please stop this, its sick.

 

[Gregarious]

First off, even if something hasn’t been talked about for a while, or even if it is “archaic” it still remains a heresy. There is not a deadline that something that once was a heresy, stops being a heresy. Granted, my primary source is from 1870. Though this is around 140 years ago, it is still relevant. That source is an encyclical from Pius IX that I have been reading alot about (by that I mean, the different encyclicals and Allocutions that they are taken from).called the “Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX”. The relevance of the aforementioned syllabus can be argued against, however, I can also try (to the best of my ability, at least) to counter the argument. I do believe that the Syllabus is wquite relevant and evenuseful when dealing with the heresies listed. Though some of the words may need to be changed to some modern variation of the words, the overall impact of it - remains.

The above error was condemned in Section VI and is number 55 out of 80 total errors condemned in the syllabus.

As relevant as Pius XI was in the 20th century, it remains just that. His condemnation of it is no longer valid today, you think just because Pius XI said something that it is still valid? Do you even know how to interpret church documents? So sadly you are incorrect, and what’s more, you probably shouldn’t be reading documents you have no idea how to contextualize.

Using this line of reasoning the railway system was evil (according to Gregory XVI) and therefore we should still take him seriously? We are living in 2011, not 1865)

So you’ve gone and read some document by a Pope, and now you consider yourself an authority on matters related to something he said? Well done, we’ll be back to the Inquisition in no time. Leave church matters to the authorities, and get yourself out of the 1930’s, we are no longer there. Your meanderings in age-old agenda is directly contradicts the outcomes of Vatican II, and unless you’re some kind of sedevacantist, you’re in a precarious position. Your argument holds no water; just because it was stated by Pius XI it has no bearing on its relevancy or authority today, there are lots of things popes have promulgated over the years, and not all of it holds today, or have they always been correct.

As for something being a heresy or not, I don’t subscribe to such issues because I don’t believe in the authority of the Church, so that’s subject to whether someone believes in or not, but I do know that just because a Pope has said something it doesn’t mean it’s still in effect today, and I believe that’s exactly what we’re looking at here.

Though, I also have atleast one secondary (and somewhat indirect) source for the Church’s stance on the Separation of Church and State.

Does it involve something prior to Vatican II?

To also address why Blessed John Paul II demanded for Reverend Father Robert Drinan, SJ to step down, was probably to do with his support for abortion and his controversial call for Nixon’s resignation.

To spin all this back to the original topic, the Separation of Church and State is relevant when it comes to involving both when it has to do with the dealing with heretics and the heresies which they promote.

~ Pius :knight1:

You’re missing the bigger picture, I’m not concerned with the details of it, what is of relevance is that he did not allow any more priests to be involved in politics, if that doesn’t spell separation of Church and state more blatantly to you, I don’t know what else will.

Furthermore you can no longer enforce Church and state together because that would result in a civil war with the multiculturalism present in today’s society, and there are enough of wars hanging around without the need to further exacerbate things just because Pius XI said so.

You probably going to ruin the Church’s reputation by blindly quoting Pius XI based on contextualizing his statements incorrectly (that means to say they were probably relevant and more in-force for the time and place he reigned in). Stop living in the 1930’s and probably show more support for your current Pope, you can’t have been anymore irrelevant if you had been a Clement VI fanboy trying to convince people of some obscure statement made by him. Your leader at the moment is Pope Benedict XVI is he not? In fact I believe in Deus Caritas Est he recommends a separation, but wishes cooperation, no where has he asked for a merging between the two entities.

The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions. For her part, the Church, as the social expression of Christian faith, has a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community which the State must recognize. The two spheres are distinct, yet always interrelated.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.

You may go and read the entire encyclical if you wish, but it’s there in plain sight for anyone to see that the merging of Church and state is something Benedict XVI does not want. Pay attention to the use of his words, not “interconnected”, but “interrelated”,

It’s time you started following your leader as of 2011.

OK? Cheers

 

[Gregarious]

It can, however, be argued that it is not murder. “Murder” is the unlawful killing of someone else, usually with premeditated malice or intent. Technically, this would not be murder if it was lawful. Then you could argue if it was morally lawful or legally lawful. But I’m not about to argue that, because that is certainly not a strong point of mine, so I’ll let someone else argue that if he wants to.

~ Pius :knight1:

Also, forgive me if I double post. I am a slow typer and I started my last post before divinefaith started his. Mea culpa.

I don’t think you’re going to find anyone arguing that point for you, because it’s not an idea the Church holds.

Also what you’re implying here is relativism, murder is only as wrong as far as the law defines it to be? On one end we have Pope Benedict XVI rallying to fight relativism, and here you are dabbling with semantics attempting to justify murder based on “legal” grounds, that is case in point, relativism as good as it gets within a legal framework.

I think you’ll find that “murder” stretches far beyond any legal nuances and is an immoral act objectively in and of itself. Any legal consensus on it has no bearing on the Church’s view of the matter, and that certainly isn’t the view you’re holding.

 

[divinefaith]

I’ve never read a more disgusting thread. How can anyone condone burning someone alive. Please stop this, its sick.

Yes I’m grossed out too!
Why would it be ok to murder a heretic opposing Catholic teachings but its not OK for non-Christians to murder Catholics for spreading a belief they believe to be “foolish”(definitely not saying it is but I’m sure that’s how many people might see it). So does that mean they have the right to kill us?

 

[Gregarious]

Yes I’m grossed out too!
Why would it be ok to murder a heretic opposing Catholic teachings but its not OK for non-Christians to murder Catholics for spreading a belief they believe to be “foolish”(definitely not saying it is but I’m sure that’s how many people might see it). So does that mean they have the right to kill us?

It wouldn’t matter to him, because if a Pope has said it, it must be so!