Why shouldn't heretics be burned?

[Rence]

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.

I guess I can understand your dismay. For a long time I defended the Church with regards to the Inquisition, and agreed with others who claimed the Church was in the right about the Inquisitions, and all the evils done by the Church were lies and rumors and historical fallacies. Boy did I have an egg on my face last week, and believe me, I felt like an idiot:

Reality slapppped me in the face about the truth of the Inquisitions and the Church itself when someone pointed me to Papal Bull Exsurge Domine, in which, apparently, Lutherans and other heretics should be burned: papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Then someone led me to the Syllabus of Modern Errors of 1864, which apparently is a list of condemnations. For example, Section VI number 55 is “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” This means that the Church apprently, at that time, condemned the separation of Church and State. Also…freedom of religion is condemned in this list as well.

That thread really shook my faith in the Church. It sometimes still does. I just try to ignore it for now. My mind can’t handle these kinds of atrocities ‘all in the name of God’. I was okay for the few days that I was offline and otherwise busy working. But this thread brought it all back to me now and my head is still swimming.

Thankfully, the reality is, the Church only has authority over those who give it authority over them. Some folks hate when you say that, but just because they hate it doesn’t mean it’s not true. It simply means they hate it.

So right now, I can still be Catholic and choose to follow the rules and I can worry about all that other stuff later. The fact also is, that’s not what the Church is about today. I admit, it’s because they can’t be about that today. But nevertheless, they aren’t about that stuff today. I’ll just concentrate on what they are about today.

 

[fakename]

Pt 2:

One objection also states this: 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.

Aquinas replied: **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. **

So clearly, the objection is somehow reconcilable with Aquinas’s thoughts and in no way contradicts it.

Again Aquinas wrote: **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. **

As for the issue of the Syllabus I will use the Catholic Encyclopedia as evidence: **Binding power

The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.

**

But finally there is the difference between material heresy: which I’m sure all of us have been guilty of at some point, and formal heresy which is stuff like actual Gnosticism.

The former just deserves admonishments, while the latter per Aquinas, deserves death. But the latter position is wrong so why is it wrong?

 

[RyanK]

Regardless of whatever conclusion you guys come to, it doesn’t matter. What the church does comes down to what the Pope decides and I highly doubt that the killing of heretics is going to come back anytime soon because that would kill off a majority of our population, including many Catholics. Also, to those who are Catholic and are trying to argue the point of killing heretics to those who aren’t Catholic, it’s not going to work because they’re not Catholic. lol.

 

[Karenfern]

Yes he died of natural causes. [/QUOT

After some years under house arrest. Meanwhile, his ideas are now accepted as not only valid but canonical. In Galileo’s time, proposing the Big Bang would have sent someone to the stake. Meanwhile, Pius XII made it a legitimate subject for study by Catholic astronomers. There is a highly regarded observatory in the Vatican. Today’s heresy is tomorrow’s prophetic statement.

 

[anp1215]

Regardless of whatever conclusion you guys come to, it doesn’t matter. What the church does comes down to what the Pope decides and I highly doubt that the killing of heretics is going to come back anytime soon because that would kill off a majority of our population, including many Catholics. Also, to those who are Catholic and are trying to argue the point of killing heretics to those who aren’t Catholic, it’s not going to work because they’re not Catholic. lol.

Yeah, it’s basically going to make them think you’re evil and insane. Don’t think it will foster their conversion very well. I don’t think the Church is evil or insane, but I wouldn’t be surprised if an uninformed Protestant saw this thread and ran away screaming (metaphorically).

 

[RyanK]

Yeah, it’s basically going to make them think you’re evil and insane. Don’t think it will foster their conversion very well. I don’t think the Church is evil or insane, but I wouldn’t be surprised if an uninformed Protestant saw this thread and ran away screaming (metaphorically).

It’s kinda like trying to argue the need of Confession to someone who doesn’t believe in God. They have to actually believe in God first so that they can understand the need of confession. lol.

 

[anp1215]

It’s kinda like trying to argue the need of Confession to someone who doesn’t believe in God. They have to actually believe in God first so that they can understand the need of confession. lol.

Yup.

 

[Gregarious]

(I am not saying that all Protestants are in or going to hell, however I don’t see how you can avoid the conclusion that a far greater % of them do then Catholics.)

Of course you have conclusive evidence to warrant this strange claim?

 

[Gregarious]

Let us continue the debate:

There have been counterarguments made:

1. killing heretics would result in civil war, we don’t want a civil war, so we shouldn’t want to kill heretics. A logical position formally, but materially I think it may be an appeal to emotion depending on what the word “want” means. But if it isn’t such an appeal, then I answer that it is true that sometimes, civil war is justified as many I’m sure would agree. If that’s true then something isn’t contradictory simply because it would cause a civil war.

But it is equally possible that civil war is not justified since it would be overly expensive. Here St. Thomas says **Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord’s words, “Suffer both to grow until the harvest,” must be gathered from those which precede, “lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it.” For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) “these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man’s crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken.” **

I think you’ll find the general Catholic view and want for not causing a civil war is not due to financial matters

Me being a non-Catholic I think I seem to be more in touch than Catholicism than the majority of you in here.

One only needs to sit down for about one hour to further expound on the reasons to avoid civil wars without ever mentioning an aspect of financial troubles. Leaving civil wars asides, there is the obvious point you’re overlooking that is: Killing people for heresy is a moral evil, and if you’re have trouble coming to grips with that why not asks the apologists here?

But honestly all conjecture here can be avoided by appealing to one’s conscience of right and wrong, some people here try to look beyond the obvious, and then find means to try and justify their thoughts based on some obscure doings and thoughts of a Church era that hasn’t existed in centuries and has completely changed in the last few decades.

None of the radical ideas have any resemblance to anything Christ preached, it’s all about this Pope said this therefore he must be correct, or this Saint did that, let’s follow his idea, or this denomination did this, no one seems to want to honestly ask “what would Jesus do?” - of course, you can’t, because you’re all wrapped up in obscurity to have considered the New Testament teachings.

 

[Rence]

To the 16 year old altar boy who said that separation of church and state is a heresy or an error, stay in school for a while longer and learn that it was separation of church and state that allowed him to practice his Catholicism just as it allows Jews to be Jewish, Muslims to be Muslim, Buddhist to be Buddhist, etc. His entire family could have been forced to be Anglican or Southern Baptist – whatever religion is in power without that. He needs to learn more about the country and how the Church has contributed to it rather than brand separation as an error.

I think you’re under the incorrect assumption that this notion of separation of Church and State being a heresy applies to the world at large (for the Catholics on this thread who want no separation of Church and State). That’s not the case. The presumption for these folks who want no separation in Church and State, is that we’re talking about the State choosing Catholicm as it’s representative religion. But, If the State religion was Muslim, Jewish or any other religion, then separation of Church and State would be okay; And so would freedom of religion: so that Catholics living in a Muslim State could practice their religion without breaking any State laws. If you’re anything other than Catholic, they believe you don’t have the right to choose that other religion.

 

[Elixir]

I should be put to the flame for bothering to read this thread…

 

[Job42]

Everyone in the Church is either a former heretic or descended from a former heretic.

 

[Equites_Christi]

The difference is that people are no longer executed for making counterfeit money, neither does the Church feel a need to “one-up” the legal system with its own punishments.

I know people love Aquinas, and he certainly has my respect, but in what material of his I’ve seen - which admittedly is not much - a lot of times he shows himself as a man of his age, sometimes to the point of making what he says no longer applicable.

I would rather read the Catechism than the Summa.

 

[fakename]

I think you’ll find the general Catholic view and want for not causing a civil war is not due to financial matters

Me being a non-Catholic I think I seem to be more in touch than Catholicism than the majority of you in here.

One only needs to sit down for about one hour to further expound on the reasons to avoid civil wars without ever mentioning an aspect of financial troubles. Leaving civil wars asides, there is the obvious point you’re overlooking that is: Killing people for heresy is a moral evil, and if you’re have trouble coming to grips with that why not asks the apologists here?

But honestly all conjecture here can be avoided by appealing to one’s conscience of right and wrong, some people here try to look beyond the obvious, and then find means to try and justify their thoughts based on some obscure doings and thoughts of a Church era that hasn’t existed in centuries and has completely changed in the last few decades.

None of the radical ideas have any resemblance to anything Christ preached, it’s all about this Pope said this therefore he must be correct, or this Saint did that, let’s follow his idea, or this denomination did this, no one seems to want to honestly ask “what would Jesus do?” - of course, you can’t, because you’re all wrapped up in obscurity to have considered the New Testament teachings.

The word I used (expensive) is said in many ways -as in morally expensive, physically expensive, etc.

Expensive=costly and I meant it in the sense of morally costly.

Also, we all know killing due to heresy is wrong, but I’ve personally never seen an argument against it.

To the contrary, I’ve always believed that the argument for such executions was always stronger -felt so since I was 13 -and it is by no means self-evident that such executions are wrong, or else we would not be having this debate.

 

[Hadrianus]

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”.

Note that Aquinas speaks of the grave sin of heresy. That is to say the heretic knows the Faith and has willfully refused it. In the society of his day such an individual would be presumed to be both in bad faith and leading souls to perdition and threatening the very fabric of civilization. The case of the Cathars comes to mind. We live in a very different world, one in which society has been largely secularized and information on everything under the sun is available to all. The Church can still excommunicate for heresy, but it is not possible for civil society to evaluate moral guilt. It is important to remember too, that execution for heresy was always a very extreme penalty. The vast majority of cases tried by the Inquisition ended in acquittal, or some lesser punishment. When it became clear that people could be born in heresy–ie protestants by upbringing–the extreme punishment could hardly be imposed upon people who, though in error were in good faith. Incidentally, Protestants executed heretics too, though in smaller numbers as their definition of heresy was narrower, but denying the Trinity was punishable by death in England under Elizabeth and James I.

 

[mathematoons]

To answer the OP’s question: I totally understand your feelings. I feel the same way at times. There’s a part of me that would like to have a Catholic version of the strict Islamic law that exists in some countries. It would be better than the cultural decay that exists.

But, as my mom pointed out to me, do we really want to be like the people behind 9/11?

More importantly, the Church forbids killing except when the life of an innocent person is in immediate danger. Some jerk who leads people away from the faith hardly counts.

Also, what constitutes being a heretic? I have trouble accepting NFP (the difference between that and ABC is really a matter of splitting hairs, as I see it–they’re both attempts to thwart God’s will), but I would never try to change Church teaching. Does that count?

The Church should do more to enforce the rules it already has against heresy.

 

[Hammer_of_Sense]

I have just joined here and read some of the rules, some of which ran along the lines of being polite and respectful etc, etc - you know common sense and decency and all that. And yet one of the first threads I read is from some mad person talking about burning “heretics”!!! What the hell? You sir are by no means intelligent as you might consider yourself if you hold such an archaic, outrageous and ridiculous point of view. You merely show your ignorance, your lack of wisdom, lack of life experience and love of life. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, you certainly sound like a nasty piece of work to me.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I have just joined here and read some of the rules, some of which ran along the lines of being polite and respectful etc, etc - you know common sense and decency and all that. And yet one of the first threads I read is from some mad person talking about burning “heretics”!!! What the hell? You sir are by no means intelligent as you might consider yourself if you hold such an archaic, outrageous and ridiculous point of view. You merely show your ignorance, your lack of wisdom, lack of life experience and love of life. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, you certainly sound like a nasty piece of work to me.

Who are you talking about? I certainly hope it isn’t me!

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Hammer_of_Sense]

Who are you talking about? I certainly hope it isn’t me!

~ Pius :knight1:

I mistakenly thought you posted the original topic and edited it almost immediately afterwhen I realised that it was someone else, so my apologies for that. The comment is addressed to original poster and of course anyone in agreement with it.

 

[fhansen]

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”.

It’s inconsistent with love. And only God has the right to judge and condemn-we don’t. Our own personal knowledge, even though enlightened by revelation, even Aquinas’ -isn’t perfect either-IOW we’re demanding too much of heretics. Who can really say that they have the whole truth and hold it with perfect certainty-with no inkling of doubt whatsoever? Humility and mercy are called for. Few, if any, heretics would hold their positions if they weren’t ignorant of the truth. “Lord forgive them for they know not what they’re doing.” And who says we only forgive once or twice?-Jesus didn’t. Excommunication is one thing-execution is another. And I think the Church knows this better than ever now:

**1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. **