Why shouldn't heretics be burned?

[followingtheway]

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 20:13[/BIBLEDRB]

God bless :byzsoc:

David

 

[fakename]

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. **

A lot of your objections were already answered by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica if you didn’t use the link, then us it, if you already did, then use it again -read and re-read I don’t think the objections survive against Aquinas.

Let me just detail some other responses -firstly it is consistent with love, Aquinas would probably argue, since it both keeps the sinner out of lower levels of hell (by killing them before they could commit heresy at an even higher degree), and detestation of a thing is directly caused by love -the more you love a thing the more you detest the opposite -again as Aquinas proves later on. So if you love God a lot you will detest the sinner a lot, and to kill something you dislike is certainly consistent with hate and so it is consistent with love. Finally it is consistent with love since to kill an enemy to society is to love that society -one may readily see how this connects with the society that is the Church. In these ways, one is consistent with love.

It’s true that man also has a right to use his conscience and should be free to do so, but I think this teaching could be cropped by the meaning of other teachings (not that I support burning heretics). Indeed the medieval world didn’t disagree that man’s conscience should be free -that people shouldn’t be coerced into the Church. Killing heretics isn’t necessarily for converting them, but mainly for removing them, the opposite idea misunderstands the use of this punishment.

Again, Aquinas wrote that with God, we may assume that those who do repent are received as many times as they repent, but that is not so with man who must protect himself from other’s wrong-doings.

Finally although God said to forgive your brother not only seven times but seventy-seven times seven times, still, Aquinas wrote that "Our Lord was speaking to Peter of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. These words are not to be applied to sins committed against one’s neighbor or against God, for it is not left to our discretion to forgive such offenses. Yet even in this matter the law prescribes limits according as God’s honor or our neighbor’s good demands. "

Again, although we can be safe that the Church teaches against burning heretics (unless heretics are murdering people etc), I’ve personally never seen a demonstration of this truth.

I’ve only seen reasons for the opposite.

 

[fhansen]

A lot of your objections were already answered by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica if you didn’t use the link, then us it, if you already did, then use it again -read and re-read I don’t think the objections survive against Aquinas.

Let me just detail some other responses -firstly it is consistent with love, Aquinas would probably argue, since it both keeps the sinner out of lower levels of hell (by killing them before they could commit heresy at an even higher degree), and detestation of a thing is directly caused by love -the more you love a thing the more you detest the opposite -again as Aquinas proves later on. So if you love God a lot you will detest the sinner a lot, and to kill something you dislike is certainly consistent with hate and so it is consistent with love. Finally it is consistent with love since to kill an enemy to society is to love that society -one may readily see how this connects with the society that is the Church. In these ways, one is consistent with love.

It’s true that man also has a right to use his conscience and should be free to do so, but I think this teaching could be cropped by the meaning of other teachings (not that I support burning heretics). Indeed the medieval world didn’t disagree that man’s conscience should be free -that people shouldn’t be coerced into the Church. Killing heretics isn’t necessarily for converting them, but mainly for removing them, the opposite idea misunderstands the use of this punishment.

Again, Aquinas wrote that with God, we may assume that those who do repent are received as many times as they repent, but that is not so with man who must protect himself from other’s wrong-doings.

Finally although God said to forgive your brother not only seven times but seventy-seven times seven times, still, Aquinas wrote that "Our Lord was speaking to Peter of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. These words are not to be applied to sins committed against one’s neighbor or against God, for it is not left to our discretion to forgive such offenses. Yet even in this matter the law prescribes limits according as God’s honor or our neighbor’s good demands. "

Again, although we can be safe that the Church teaches against burning heretics (unless heretics are murdering people etc), I’ve personally never seen a demonstration of this truth.

I’ve only seen reasons for the opposite.

Aquinas’ arguments are a bit lame on this-I really think the church has had to learn hard lessons to outgrow this particular position. Even the verses cited from Titus 3 don’t support the practice: Here are the final verses:

**10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: 11 Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment.
**
This tells us to avoid the heretic and let him be condemned by his own judgment. This is back when a small, persecuted Church couldn’t help but be humble anyway, the way it should be. The whole argument that supported the Inquisition in the way it was carried out reveals a Church whose ties to temporal power had become too close.

 

[RyanK]

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.

Careful, you can get banned for talk like that.

 

[Debora123]

Careful, you can get banned for talk like that.

…And yet not for condoning the slaughter of human beings who have different religious beliefs??

Amazing.

 

[RyanK]

…And yet not for condoning the slaughter of human beings who have different religious beliefs??

Amazing.

I didn’t say that

 

[anp1215]

…And yet not for condoning the slaughter of human beings who have different religious beliefs??

Amazing.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[Roman_Catechism]

Like the Scriptures, this portion of the Summa must be taken in its historical context. It is similar to the idea that the death penalty was justified in ancient times. It no longer is.

I have read the first volume of the Summa twice now. There are plenty of things that modern science and such have proven false, and as such must be taken within their historical context.

If putting persistent heretics to death was ever justified (and I think the case could be made that it probably wasn’t) it couldn’t possibly be so now.

I shudder to think what a Protestant who has mixed feelings about the Church would think if they saw this thread, and saw Catholics seemingly okay with the idea of people being put to death just because of their dangerous ideas…

 

[Contarini]

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.

What about the Big Bang would have been considered heretical?

You may be right–I’d just like to see more than an assertion.

Also, it’s highly unlikely in my opinion that Galileo would have gotten into as much trouble earlier. He was working at a particularly defensive period in Catholic history, and the fact that he seems to have gone out of his way to insult the Pope (who had suggested the “out” of simply proposing his view as a speculative theory) didn’t help!

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.

Sometimes. Sometimes it’s just tomorrow’s weird idea that we have trouble understanding how anyone could have believed. And sometimes it just goes on being a heresy. . . .

Edwin

 

[Debora123]

I didn’t say that

I know. Wasn’t trying to say you did, just making a point about some of the standards around here.

 

[Contarini]

Yes simple observation is the standard that I’m using for this claim since I dont see heretics being burned at the stake today and I dont see heretics burning Catholics at the stake for not following thier errors. Are you denying that heretics killed Catholics back then for not following them?

Well, the OP is talking about the 13th century. There certainly were reports of Cathar violence in the 13th century, and some modern Catholic writers try to justify Catholic repression of the Cathars by portraying the Cathars as murderous monsters. But I have not seen any credible reports of Cathars actually trying to force Catholics to become Cathars–only of Cathars and the civil rulers who protected them attacking Church emissaries who were trying to convert them, and also stir up persecution against them. In fact, the Cathar “perfect” took strict vows of non-violence, but there were many sympathizers who were willing to use force to defend the “perfect.”

Certainly in the sixteenth century Protestants were very aggressive, if that’s what you have in mind!

Thanks for answering your own question my friend. Notice in my original response I did not use the words “all” or “most” before the word heretics. I simple wrote “heretics” which I’m sorry if that gave you the impression that I meant “most” or “all”.

 

[Contarini]

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

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

 

[Contarini]

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

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

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

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.

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.)

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.

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. 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.

When I read the Aquinas passage cited by the OP, I don’t find it at all persuasive. But I do clearly find it to be the work of a holy man who loved God and loved his neighbor, and was endorsing harsh penalties for what he considered an awful crime, while allowing for mercy as much as he considered possible. I don’t have any problem venerating the man who wrote such things, nor would I be at all troubled by belonging to a Church in which he was a Doctor. (Indeed, I claim to belong to that Church in some sense, but we don’t need to argue about that here!)

The Church is a pilgrim community founded on the truth of God Incarnate. I’m not denying that the Church can speak infallibly, but I wonder why so many here want to defend more than they need to. I was told for years that the Church hadn’t spoken infallibly very often–yet many folks on these forums seem to think they must defend every encyclical and every disciplinary action.

As I see it, God protects the Church from error only when that error would destroy the Church. I recognize that I may be coming close to Hans Kung’s position–and that wouldn’t be surprising in an Anglican–but unlike Kung I don’t rule out the possibility that specific papal decisions might be infallible precisely because under those circumstances error would destroy the Church. (I do have trouble seeing why the Marian definitions generally listed as “ex cathedra” come under that category–but again, I’m an Anglican.)

As Cardinal Newman said, the problem of evil in the Church is a subdivision of the general problem of evil.

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.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[RyanK]

I know. Wasn’t trying to say you did, just making a point about some of the standards around here.

Oh, gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

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”.

You tie them to the post and YOU light the fire. Then, we’ll come visit you in either the State Mental Hospital for the Criminally Insane, or at the Death House.

 

[anp1215]

I shudder to think what a Protestant who has mixed feelings about the Church would think if they saw this thread, and saw Catholics seemingly okay with the idea of people being put to death just because of their dangerous ideas…

Exactly. I am cringing. I know the difference between what the Church teaches and what an individual Catholic thinks, but many do not. I pray none of them ever comes across this thread.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Exactly. I am cringing. I know the difference between what the Church teaches and what an individual Catholic thinks, but many do not. I pray none of them ever comes across this thread.

Though I may be a part of a tiny minority, but I actually enjoy this thread. It is a fine expression of ideas and information. Thus, it holds a wealth of info ranging from Summa, to the Syllabus of Errors, to Deus Caritas Est. It is a fine thread, but it is being bashed for discussing a rather delicate topic. I haven’t seen anyone actually “supporting” the burning of heretics. The OP is playing “devils advocate” for lack of a better term, and he even declares that he knows its wrong. I don’t see anything wrong with this thread.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[anp1215]

I don’t see anything wrong with this thread.

~ Pius :knight1:

OK. I do. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

[Debora123]

Though I may be a part of a tiny minority, but I actually enjoy this thread. It is a fine expression of ideas and information. Thus, it holds a wealth of info ranging from Summa, to the Syllabus of Errors, to Deus Caritas Est. It is a fine thread, but it is being bashed for discussing a rather delicate topic. I haven’t seen anyone actually “supporting” the burning of heretics. The OP is playing “devils advocate” for lack of a better term, and he even declares that he knows its wrong. I don’t see anything wrong with this thread.

~ Pius :knight1:

What’s “wrong” with it is the fact that people are talking about it in such a matter of fact sort of way… as if burning another human being alive isn’t one of the most evil, heinous, repulsive things one person could ever do to another.

A couple comments I’ve seen have even considered/weighed the option a little bit - which is absolutely despicable and pure evil, and I don’t even know WHY this thread even exists on a CHRISTIAN FORUM.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

What’s “wrong” with it is the fact that people are talking about it in such a matter of fact sort of way… as if burning another human being alive isn’t one of the most evil, heinous, repulsive things one person could ever do to another.

A couple comments I’ve seen have even considered/weighed the option a little bit - which is absolutely despicable and pure evil, and I don’t even know WHY this thread even exists on a CHRISTIAN FORUM.

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: