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.
And *I *answer that the sin of heresy lies in the intention to deny against that which God has revealed to be true. A heretic in the truest sense, then, is one who rejects revealed truth out of pride and obstinacy. But it by no means as easy as it appeared in St. Thomas’s day to determine who has truly committed such a sin. For many persons deny the teaching of the Church out of sincerity, because they believe either that the Church does not truly teach the matter in question or that the Church does not truly have authority from God. Therefore, it is better to leave up to God the punishment of heresy, beyond the act of excommunication which is necessary for the preservation of the discipline of the Church.
I further note that St. Thomas implicitly recognizes the importance of intention in defining heresy, since he says in his reply to objection 2 that the profit arising from heresy is beside the intention of the heretic. It is now evident to most Christians, however, that many who are material heretics do indeed desire the profit of the Church. Thus, objection 2 retains its force–they are not only unwittingly serving the good of the Church but actually (in many cases) intend to do so, even if they err as to just how they are doing so.
The general rule may then be laid down that only bodily crimes should be punished with bodily punishments, while spiritual crimes should be punished only with spiritual punishments.
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.
In the first place, I answer that the premise needs to be proved–it is by no means evident that the forgery of money ought to be punished by death.
In the second place, even if it were true, the two cases are not alike. Money derives its value solely from the determination of human beings, whether a ruler who judges that such-and-such a piece of money shall have such-and-such value or from the laws of the market, which consist of the collective estimations of many human beings.
Truth, on the other hand, does not derive its value from the determination of any human being, but from its conformity to the divine Mind. Thus, as I said above, the true heretic is the person who deliberately chooses to corrupt the truth, knowing (or at least having only vincible ignorance of the fact) that it is the truth. But because of the vagaries and complexities of the human mind, which were not sufficiently evident to St. Thomas, it is not possible to know who has committed so wicked a deed and who has not.
A further consideration is that the union between Church and State which was considered normative at the time of St. Thomas can be clearly seen to have been detrimental to the mission of the Church. The statements to the contrary by Blessed Pius IX clearly do not represent the present mind of the Church, nor are they infallible teaching with regard to faith and morals, but rather the prudential judgment of a Pope facing what reasonably appeared to him at the time to be a catastrophic change in the temporal situation of the Church.
It should be noted that until the twelfth century, while gratefully accepting the assistance of the State in many ways, the Church did not press for the death penalty to be imposed on heretics. St. Thomas was perhaps insufficiently aware of this or did not give it due weight. The situation pertaining from the twelfth through the beginning of the nineteenth century, while it seemed normative at the time, in fact should not be held up as preferable either to the preceding or the following centuries.
Therefore, the above remarks should not be understood to reject the benefit of any kind of union between the Church and the State. Such a union has many advantages as well as many disadvantages, as does separation. Neither union nor separation is an absolute good–rather, the good to be pursued is the Church’s conformity with her Lord and her mission of restoring the human race to union with God through Jesus Christ. The support of the state advances this mission, while also providing grave dangers and temptations to the Church. In this it is no different from any other kind of relationship between Church and State. (Even persecution of the Church by the State, which may seem to be the ideal relationship between Church and State given the example of the martyrs and the teaching of the early Fathers that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, has its dangers for the Church, besides being fraught with great harm to the souls of those who inflict such persecution.) However, the practice of using the secular arm to inflict bodily penalties (particularly the death penalty) upon heretics represents one particular kind of surrender to the peculiar temptations arising from a union between Church and State.
Edwin
Yes burning someone would be seen as an objective evil however the sinfulness of such an action could be lessened or removed based on the circumstance, the intent, and the knowledge of the individuals doing the burning.