Why shouldn't heretics be burned?

[fhansen]

And what is better than one’s life is sacred doctrine.

Quite important to prove beyond any doubt that the sacred doctrine is true-before contemplating burning people. It’s one thing to die for ones convictions-it’s mean, stupid, and unChristian to kill someone else for them. Especially when the sacred doctrine tells us not to kill.

 

[ahs]

… that the holy doctrine is better than life (As proved by the martyrs), and so it is better than any living man. … 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.
**

I don’t think you can relate Martyrdom with murdering someone for the Faith.

You can’t deduce that killing a heretic is okay, because God said “Thou shalt not kill.” He didn’t qualify that with “…except heretics, etc…” The proper fight against the heretic is fraternal correction as it is put forth in the Bible in the words of Christ:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:15-18)

We are taught by our own Doctrines that justice is God’s alone.

In regards to Martyrs, they are killed by non-believers for their Faith. Their death is not something they choose, except that they would rather die than deny their faith. But you can’t then make a link between that and killing someone for a lack of Faith. All you are doing then is making a martyr for the heretics (and committing murder…and taking something that is not ours to take, but is God’s alone).

ahs

 

[fakename]

Quite important to prove beyond any doubt that the sacred doctrine is true-before contemplating burning people. It’s one thing to die for ones convictions-it’s mean, stupid, and unChristian to kill someone else for them. Especially when the sacred doctrine tells us not to kill.

It goes w/o saying that one should prove beyond a doubt that the sacred doctrine is true -but that is certainly possible we know many things which are proven beyond a doubt in religion.

But remember, we are trying to find arguments here against Aquinas, and what you stated at the end of this post (“Especially when…”) is exactly what we’re trying to argue over so we shouldn’t waste our time -unless you have an authoritative teaching by someone to give us?

 

[ahs]

…what you stated at the end of this post (“Especially when…”) is exactly what we’re trying to argue over so we shouldn’t waste our time -unless you have an authoritative teaching by someone to give us?

-You mean like God’s? He said, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Are you saying that there is possibly some argument that is more authoritative than that?

 

[fakename]

I don’t think you can relate Martyrdom with murdering someone for the Faith.

You can’t deduce that killing a heretic is okay, because God said “Thou shalt not kill.” He didn’t qualify that with “…except heretics, etc…” The proper fight against the heretic is fraternal correction as it is put forth in the Bible in the words of Christ:

Of course, if this is true, then self-defense is also not lawful since again, you said that he didn’t qualify his command.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt 18:15-18)

We are taught by our own Doctrines that justice is God’s alone.

**What authoritative document, explicitly or by force of tradition, states that heretics are not to be killed? In any case, this thread is about finding theological arguments against Aquinas’s opinion and therefore, to state that our own doctrines say not to kill heretics, is not to argue but to assert instead. Also, it is a question begging assertion. Also, it would follow that Aquinas is wrong only if all justice was God’s alone, but that is obviously not true -some is, and some is not and so the question ensues. **

In regards to Martyrs, they are killed by non-believers for their Faith. Their death is not something they choose, except that they would rather die than deny their faith. But you can’t then make a link between that and killing someone for a lack of Faith. All you are doing then is making a martyr for the heretics (and committing murder…and taking something that is not ours to take, but is God’s alone).

I think this is an argument from bad consequences or effects or emotion -either way it doesn’t follow from the fact that Aquinas’s argument would result in horrible events, that the argument is wrong.

ahs

 

[fakename]

-You mean like God’s? He said, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Are you saying that there is possibly some argument that is more authoritative than that?

SEE: post 146

 

[fhansen]

What authoritative document, explicitly or by force of tradition, states that heretics are not to be killed?

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

OK, this is Catholic doctrine, unlike the section of the Summa you cited. Are you suggesting that the Church would instruct us that it’s not admissible to force a person to believe rightly but it is alright to kill them for believing wrongly, whether or not it’s publicly expressed?

 

[DAAVEED1590]

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

Never said it wasnt wrong. I agree, murder surely kills the soul of the murderer. I was simply emphasising that you can kill someones body without killing their soul, and you can kill someones soul without killing their body.
It was mostly an example.

God Bless and Ave Maria!

 

[DAAVEED1590]

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

Difference is is that Christ preached truth, where as a heretic preaches lies which can kill souls.

Just on a note of calcification, when I said “which I think is a good reason” I was refering to preventing the said heretic from spreading soul killing lies. I don’s condone killing heretics for their herecy. I don’t think they should be killed, but they must be disciplined, as Pius said.

 

[DAAVEED1590]

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.[/Q]

What fallacy? I was never saying I condoned the idea, I was simply saying that I thought it was a good idea to make sure heretics stop spreading lies, not nesecarily by killing them, but disciplining them defenatly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is supporting puttng souls in danger. I think you misunderstood my post. I do admit i did word it badly.

And yes, I do want to become a priest. I hope to (if God wills it) join a FSSP seminary and become a diocesan priest, serving the traditionalist catholic faithful through the EF of the Mass.

God Bless and Ave Maria!

 

[DAAVEED1590]

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:

I fully support BI Pope Pius IX (both the actual Pope and the user). I agree, this thread is quite interesting, having read many of the posts. I am glad the moderator hasent closed the thread.

When one actualy reads into the history of the Inqusition, one will see that it was nothing it was made up to be. No killing of millions. No mass burnings at the stake. That is all anti-church propaganda (and sadly many in the Church believe it, hence the poo-pooers of this thread). Theres nothing wrong with supporting the discipline of heretics, as nobody is suporting their murder either.

On another note, I am happy to meet another teen who is concerned about the faith and is so orthodox as yourself. Not only do you have a great username (what a holy and good pope), but you also show an intelegence and theologic knowlage that far surpases my own. Not to mention that it is always good to meet a fellow alter boy.

God Bless and Ave Maria!

 

[Karenfern]

oh.my.goodness. Does this thread actually exist? Are some of these replies real? Surely I am hallucinating.

I can only speculate that many of the posters here are living in the end of the 19th century and are totally out of phase with the 21st. The idea of heresy is itself obscene and stupid. I’m a theologian and I don’t believe there is such a thing within the 21st century ambit of religion. In fact, what was labeled heresy back then runs society now. It is the basis of how we do business, how we do science, etc. It was a very traditional pope who opened this up – Pius XII. Whatever else he was (and I have several nasty words for what he was), he was enough of a visionary to see how the idea of heresy would strangle the church and deprive it of any chance to participate in the modern world. So he took the Big Bang and made it a licit subject for Catholic astronomers. He concluded that it was alright for a Catholic anesthesiologist to let a dying patient die. He was way ahead of his time. He basically reversed much of the damage Pius IX had done – that many popes had done – and brought the church into the present. His successor finished the job.

The Church no longer has the right to declare someone a heretic in the USA. The idea of heresy, which Donald Wuerle leveled against Sister Elizabeth Johnson, has splashed back on Wuerle and made him look like a load of macho garbage. The last real heresy trial in the US was in the Lutheran church and led to such a fervent protest that the trial jury had to drop the idea. It was based on the charge that a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor committed heresy by appearing at a prayer service a week or so after the 9/11 attacks. His heresy was that he treated other clergy as equals. The email and editorial campaign was awesome.

I wish some of these babies here would smell the burning flesh of the auto da fe in Inquisition-period Spain and watched the screaming victims. Maybe they would think twice. Then again, maybe they would enjoy it.

 

[Karenfern]

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!

You said “the heretics” which does usually imply that it was generally the case.

OK–so we are agreed that this wasn’t the Church’s primary reason?

I am not convinced that it was the state’s primary reason either. Violence against heretics was very frequently completely unaccompanied by any specific harm the heretics had done other than their simple denial of Catholic belief.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes how Henry II of England threw Cathar refugees out into the snow to die, and gives no record of anything wrong they had done except convert one woman to their belief.

Sure, but I have no reason to think that it was common (outside sixteenth-century England) or that it had much to do with laws against heresy.

Edwin

Great post. I was thinking of what happened in Beziers during the Cathari crusade. The city was under siege and a soldier – a Catholic soldier – protested to a priest that burning the city would burn loyal Catholics. The priest said “burn them all. God will know his own.” That kind of thinking was bizarre then and is more bizarre now. Fortunately for us, there is no heresy charge that the civil government can use against anyone now that there is separation between church and state. The church back in the 13th and 14th centuries would torture a suspected Cathari hereticand then turn him or her over to the state for execution. That can’t happen here.

I am thinking that Jesus would read this thread and barf.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

They are already not in communion…

Yes, but make it PUBLIC. Remove them from all Catholic functions from the Parish, and move their Baptismal records away from the Parish, or put them in a separate section. The punishments of heretics for CATHOLIC countries (i.e. Malta, Liechtenstein) should be up to the Parliament or the Prince. As I said previously, I am all for leaving it up to the Holy Father.

The root of all this is that heresy must be suppressed in the Church. It must be condemned. Just because it runs society today, doesn’t make it okay.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[freethinker83]

Never said it wasnt wrong. I agree, murder surely kills the soul of the murderer. I was simply emphasising that you can kill someones body without killing their soul, and you can kill someones soul without killing their body.
It was mostly an example.

God Bless and Ave Maria!

May I ask how a person’s soul can be killed? I’m curious as to how you would define this. I have no motive or anything, I just want to understand your viewpoint.

 

[Hammer_of_Sense]

Okay, I’d like to add a few more words to the conservation. I have not ready many of the detailed arguments for or against posted here, I have done this with great deliberation, being a busy person with better things to do. Of course I have read about the Inquisition and about Aquinas and some of the things he said in the past, possibly about two books on the subject of the Inquisition and its evil. But really people I can assuredly say to you that very little thought is actually required on the validity of this particular subject rendering all your complex arguments, thoughts and quotes from past senior church figures totally and utterly irrelevant. If you cannot get your head around the fact it is utterly evil and unsupportable by any conceivable argument to burn alive anyone for having different beliefs your soul and humanity are lost. It really isn’t that difficult to understand. This ridiculous argument is UNSUPPORTABLE.

In Matthew 9:12, Jesus says,
“Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do.”

Forget about what the institution of the catholic church says a moment and maybe pay a little more attention to the “main man” of the show. I may be an atheist but I know there is still much wisdom jesus teachings and I accept TRUTH gladly when I hear it.

And to those who have said I need to watch what I say or I will be banned, well if someone decides to ban me for telling the TRUTH then perhaps that demonstrates this forums true value. I haven’t been rude or abusive in what I have said, I just try and speak the TRUTH and sense and that’s all that counts, not the words of some inquisitor who has been dead for 700 years and thought it was okay to go around burning people.

 

[ProPatria]

Difference is is that Christ preached truth, where as a heretic preaches lies which can kill souls.

Just on a note of calcification, when I said “which I think is a good reason” I was refering to preventing the said heretic from spreading soul killing lies. I don’s condone killing heretics for their herecy. I don’t think they should be killed, but they must be disciplined, as Pius said.

How exactly, in this day and age, do you think that heretics should be “disciplined?”
Violence is not the optimal solution, just think of the philosopher and mathematician Hypatia, who was killed by a group of enraged Christians even though she had done absolutely nothing wrong. She was killed because she was a pagan and a (more or less collateral) victim of political feuds.
Talking in this manner about punishing heretics is counter-productive. We must not give the world a reason to think that we want to burn everyone who disagrees with our Faith. This isn’t the 13th century. Like Desiderius Erasmus said, it’s better to heal a sick man than to kill him.