Would it be moral for the State to make heresy illegal?

[dominikus28]

Would it be moral for the state to punish heresy with the death penalty?

I’m only asking about the moral aspect. So I’m not interested in the likelihood or posibility of any state doing this, but simply if, let’s say, Monaco made heresy illegal, would Catholics be able to deny it as immoral? St Thomas Aquinas says that murder of the soul (heresy) is worse thsn murder of the body, and many heretics were killed in the Spanish Inquisition. I know the numbers are greatly exaggerated, but let’s be honest, heretics were killed for being heretics, and repentabt heretics were mercifully strangled. ISIS executes those who don’t convert to Islam, but that’s immoral because islam is wrong. It’s a different story when talking about Catholicism because Catholicism is the correct religion. And if you accept that the state exists to help us be more virtuous, then stopping heresy fron spreading using lethal force would be justified.

It probably wouldn’t be prudent to kill heretics because ideas can spread over the internet and so on, but again, my question is about the morality of this. So was it moral to kill those heretics back during the Spanish Inquisition?

 

[Nelka]

I think it would be difficult for the government to decide whom has committed heresy.

 

[agnes_therese]

I think politicians are the LAST people we’d want to have involved in that.

 

[QuestLove]

Would it be moral for the state to punish heresy with the death penalty?

I’m only asking about the moral aspect. So I’m not interested in the likelihood or posibility of any state doing this, but simply if, let’s say, Monaco made heresy illegal, would Catholics be able to deny it as immoral? St Thomas Aquinas says that murder of the soul (heresy) is worse thsn murder of the body, and many heretics were killed in the Spanish Inquisition. I know the numbers are greatly exaggerated, but let’s be honest, heretics were killed for being heretics, and repentabt heretics were mercifully strangled. ISIS executes those who don’t convert to Islam, but that’s immoral because islam is wrong. It’s a different story when talking about Catholicism because Catholicism is the correct religion. And if you accept that the state exists to help us be more virtuous, then stopping heresy fron spreading using lethal force would be justified.

It probably wouldn’t be prudent to kill heretics because ideas can spread over the internet and so on, but again, my question is about the morality of this. So was it moral to kill those heretics back during the Spanish Inquisition?

Why would it be moral to kill someone for something they don’t believe? Regardless of whether you think your religion is the correct one.
Somehow, I do not see God giving us humans the power to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. Killing of heretics was a horrible mistake in the past and I doubt one any church wants to replicate.

 

[oliver927]

I don’t see how the Church could support the state killing people for what the state considers heresy and at the same time teach that the death penalty is only to be used if and only if it is the only way to protect human life and if non-lethal means are available then the state should limit itself to that. Killing a heretic prevents them from being able to repent.

I can’t think of anything more frightening then the government deciding if you should live or die based on a belief you have.

 

[EllisWoods]

So was it moral to kill those heretics back during the Spanish Inquisition?

Did the Magisterium sanction the killing of heretics?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Surely the expression “Been there, done that” applies to this issue.

 

[St_Francis]

I believe it was moral for a Catholic state to inflict the death penalty on heretics, esp in Spain.

Remember that Spain had been newly freed from the domination of the Moslems, and had said that all Moslems had to leave. Some Moslems *pretended *to convert and caused trouble–they were like spies, and death has always been the punishment for spies, those who collude with the enemy, and those who try to bring citizens over to the side of the enemy.

In other nations, there was a similar sort of thinking: in a Catholic nation those who preached heresy would be trying to subvert the government and turn the people away from their Faith. Since they knew that rejecting Catholicism would be apostasy, leading to an eternity in Hell, heretics were correctly seen as extremely evil–even more evil than one who murdered the body but not the soul.

We have lost that sense of danger regarding apostasy, and we (in the west) are very supportive of freedom of thought, so this seems very strange to us, no?

And yet even here we are beginning to punish people for heresy against the “common world view.” In Canada, pastors are prosecuted for pointing out that sodomy is a sin; in the US, people are hounded from their businesses for thinking that SSM is wrong.

 

[captainrick]

Blasphemy was actually a crime in New Jersey. A colleague of mine prosecuted a blasphemy case in the 1970’s, the first one in many years. Today I doubt a statute making blasphemy or heresy a crime could be passed.

 

[on_the_hill]

I have no education in law, no education in Canon law, and what I know about theology I learned from skimming CAF.

The answer is: No, it would not be moral. Somewhere in the Church’s doctrine lies the belief that people have a free will and must examine their conscious to make decisions. Therefore, Church cannot force people to profess agreement, and therefore neither can the State.

 

[on_the_hill]

And if you accept that the state exists to help us be more virtuous,

This I do not accept. The state exists to provide various aspects of the public welfare (which aspects those are will be argued forever). It is the representation of the people it governs.

The state does not make us virtuous; we make the state virtuous by being virtuous ourselves.

 

[EllisWoods]

I believe it was moral for a Catholic state to inflict the death penalty on heretics, esp in Spain.

This seems like the definition of religious fanaticism and difficult to distinguish from the thinking of jihadists.

 

[St_Francis]

This seems like the definition of religious fanaticism and difficult to distinguish from the thinking of jihadists.

I’m sorry, I should have been more careful to point out that those heretics who were punished with death were those who were actively engaged in trying to persuade others to apostasize or actual efforts against the state, and it was people like this to whom I refer.

I do think that this should not be applied to those simply “doing their own thing” and not bothering anyone, only to those who are a danger to others in one way or another.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t see how the Church could support the state killing people for what the state considers heresy and at the same time teach that the death penalty is only to be used if and only if it is the only way to protect human life and if non-lethal means are available then the state should limit itself to that. Killing a heretic prevents them from being able to repent.

I can’t think of anything more frightening then the government deciding if you should live or die based on a belief you have.

The current teaching about the DP rests on the fact that as we have advanced technologically, we are more able to protect society without using the DP. This was not the case way back when.

 

[Genesis315]

Yes, the profession of heresy could be made illegal if it were deemed harmful to the common good, but otherwise, the state would not have the power to forcefully impede it. So in other words, it depends on the specific circumstances. From the Catechism (2106 and 2108 deal with when the state cannot impede it, 2109 deals with when the state can impede it):

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

This is because civil authority exists solely for the common good:

54. The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities.

The common good includes man’s spiritual well-being:

57. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)

1. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)
2. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

This would apply whether you take heresy into account under a religious liberty analysis or a freedom of speech analysis (see Pacem in Terris 12).
w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If a religion existed that called for the death penalty to be applied to heretics…and a government recognized that religion as the “state religion” it would it be a moral obligation for the state to punish heresy with the death penalty.

 

[mikekle]

Why would it be moral to kill someone for something they don’t believe? Regardless of whether you think your religion is the correct one.
Somehow, I do not see God giving us humans the power to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. Killing of heretics was a horrible mistake in the past and I doubt one any church wants to replicate.

Well, in the OT, God did not have a problem instructing people to kill, sometimes entire towns if but one person there committed blasphemy!! How would you feel if you lived in that town and never committed blasphemy, but since one guy did, now you and your entire town must die by order of God?

I recognize the NT got rid of these laws, but still, it shows at one time, God WAS apparently ok with it.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It could be morally permissible for the state to criminalize the spreading of heresy.

 

[Nixbits]

mikekle:

I recognize the NT got rid of these laws, but still, it shows at one time, God WAS apparently ok with it.

If that is the case, then it means that God is OK now with innocent people being killed because one or more of them blasphemed, because God is unchanging. Apparently.

 

[exnihilo]

Blasphemy was actually a crime in New Jersey. A colleague of mine prosecuted a blasphemy case in the 1970’s, the first one in many years. Today I doubt a statute making blasphemy or heresy a crime could be passed.

No, but today you have hate speech. It is the same basic concept. And most people seem to approve of it. In our modern culture it is OK to insult God but not the new god, man.