Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: gilbertgea on November 03, 2007, 10:29:42 AM
-
Just curious to see if the Church had anything to say on the matter, or if it apologised for handing over condemned heretics to civil authority for burning in the same manner it apologised for, for instance, the Crusades.
-
One of Luther's errors condemned by Pope Leo X in Exsurge Domine was "33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."
That doesn't make burning heretics obligatory, though gilbertgea!
And, incidentally, approving of women's trousers is not a heresy!
-
The burning of heretics was never condemned by the traditional Magisterium of the Church. It was permissable to put them to death, although the secular power did so.
It's the same as treason with far worse consequences. Hence, it was permissible under Catholic social law.
Funny that Clare is taking her Crusade about trousers to this thread.
Memo to Clare: this is not a trouser thread.
-
The burning of heretics was never condemned by the traditional Magisterium of the Church. It was permissable to put them to death, although the secular power did so.
It's the same as treason with far worse consequences. Hence, it was permissible under Catholic social law.
Funny that Clare is taking her Crusade about trousers to this thread.
Memo to Clare: this is not a trouser thread.
Michael,
Gilbertgea first raised the issue of burning heretics on the trouser thread.
He said, if you remember, that "in saner times" people with my views would have been burned at the stake.
Now, lo and behold, he starts a thread about burning heretics.
So, you should understand why I made the connection.
-
The burning of heretics was never condemned by the traditional Magisterium of the Church. It was permissable to put them to death, although the secular power did so.
It's the same as treason with far worse consequences. Hence, it was permissible under Catholic social law.
Funny that Clare is taking her Crusade about trousers to this thread.
Memo to Clare: this is not a trouser thread.
Michael,
Gilbertgea first raised the issue of burning heretics on the trouser thread.
He said, if you remember, that "in saner times" people with my views would have been burned at the stake.
Now, lo and behold, he starts a thread about burning heretics.
So, you should understand why I made the connection.
Fine and agreed. If you believe he was making that connection than you have every right to make such a statement.
-
"The burning of heretics was never condemned by the traditional Magisterium of the Church. It was permissable to put them to death, although the secular power did so."
I thought as much.
"It's the same as treason with far worse consequences. Hence, it was permissible under Catholic social law."
Of course. Treason is an offense against a wholly secular authority, whereas heresy is an offense against God.
"Funny that Clare is taking her Crusade about trousers to this thread."
Just ignore her.
-
Fine and agreed. If you believe he was making that connection than you have every right to make such a statement.
Thank you.
-
:laugh1: The "trouser thread"? lol Sounds like one of those political scandals or something. "Trousergate!"
Ok, but on topic, was it all right to burn heretics? Well, there may have been a more 'humane' way to do away with them but... perhaps not a more symbolic? Anyhow, the concept of removing someone from this life who poses a serious threat to the fabric of all that is good and just in this world is pretty rational. Just like condemning error and not allowing it equal rights with truth is pretty rational.
Some things in life are necessary, even if unpleasant. (Except perhaps the infamous trouser thread.)
This is also along the same lines as questioning the inquisition, I might add. One must wonder just how many heretics actually were burnt at the stake. I have learned in the last some years, for example, that the history of the crusades and inquisition have come to be portrayed under a very, very false light. It's an interesting topic. Makes one wonder how much of history in general we've all swallowed that was in fact totally off.
-
:laugh1: The "trouser thread"? lol Sounds like one of those political scandals or something. "Trousergate!"
Ok, but on topic, was it all right to burn heretics? Well, there may have been a more 'humane' way to do away with them but... perhaps not a more symbolic? Anyhow, the concept of removing someone from this life who poses a serious threat to the fabric of all that is good and just in this world is pretty rational. Just like condemning error and not allowing it equal rights with truth is pretty rational.
Some things in life are necessary, even if unpleasant. (Except perhaps the infamous trouser thread.)
This is also along the same lines as questioning the inquisition, I might add. One must wonder just how many heretics actually were burnt at the stake. I have learned in the last some years, for example, that the history of the crusades and inquisition have come to be portrayed under a very, very false light. It's an interesting topic. Makes one wonder how much of history in general we've all swallowed that was in fact totally off.
In the world of softness and non-violence it lacks compassion. In the world where monks were men and Satan was scared it was different and it made sense to take someone from the earth that was sending souls to Hell.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The difference is our sensibilities changed with a kinder world.
-
Actually, isn't it accepted teaching that while a person is alive, they are still in a period of grace, and we cannot know whether they may repent of their errors before death? If we put them to death in a state of heresy, we're pretty much handing that soul to the devil, aren't we?
It's never a simple matter when we take someone else's life in our hands. I believe in capital punishment, but more so because it is an effective deterrent to others...which is why they burned heretics too...
No easy answer to this one. After all, Galileo was convicted of heresy and spent the rest of his life under house arrest...for believing something that turned out to be true...
-
...After all, Galileo was convicted of heresy and spent the rest of his life under house arrest...for believing something that turned out to be true...
Or did it?
I'm not so sure!
-
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The difference is our sensibilities changed with a kinder world.
Um... did you actually read my post?
-
I come from a country where the death penalty was effectively abolished a long time ago, so perhaps even now there are wide differences of opinion between our respective nations on capital punishment. I for one am completely opposed to it.
I know that one of the reasons heretics were burned was to give them plenty of time to repent if they chose to do so. However, the idea of burning someone because they were so firmly fixed in their (admittedly erroneous) conscience that they would be willing to die for it doesn't seem quite right to me, even allowing the obvious differences between our more sentimental mindset and the mindset of the times. I do agree however that some heretics who openly professed their heresies were sending souls to hell as a result, and as such, they needed to be stopped. I don't see why life imprisonment shouldn't have been just as effective (and more humane) means of achieving that.
-
"I for one am completely opposed to it."
What is the Church's stance on the death penalty?
-
Edit: I am talking about the death penalty of today, not the burning of heretics in Luther's time.
-
Anyone who has dealt with prison inmates, including those on death row, will tell you that life in prison is NOT humane. I have read letters from people in prison who said that they wish the state would just kill them already, so they could end the hell that is prison life. Others would kill themselves if they could.
Do a little research on what life is like in prison, and use your imagination. Imagine spending 24/7 with 0 privacy, in a room about the size of most people's bathrooms, in a hostile environment with no rights. I'm not saying that prison is wrong. It is both right and necessary to protect society and punish criminals whose offenses do not warrant death. But not all the inmates who rot on death row for years and years as the state stalls their execution needlessly, enjoy the rollercoaster ride of hearings that decide whether they live past this and such a date, and if so, for how long... or trying to be mentally prepared to go when it's time, only to realize day by day that you don't know when death is coming, because the state is too busy trying to humanely postpone the unhappy event.
Prison is not a happy place. It's not even a particularly humane place. For lesser criminals, though, it gets the point across. If they're capable of being reformed and willing not to repeat their crime, then hey... of course we should let them live so we can one day let them go. That's fine. But when you have a person who is mentally ill (as a good many inmates are) who has no intention of not doing a heinous crime again and again if released, you have two choices... drug them up and put them in prison for life... in a lifelong hell to proceed the eternal one... or dispatch them rather than putting them through years of additional torments. And if they are so mentally ill they didn't know better or couldn't control their behavior, hey... maybe God will spare them. But at least nobody else will get hurt, and they won't have to live in prison for 30 or 40 years before finally getting to wherever it is they WILL go.
Remember the story in the bible about the man and his wife who withheld part of the price of their property from the church, and how the sentence for it was instant death (being struck dead). Remember Sodom and Gomorrah, where God gave so many "the death sentence" for their crimes. Is it so unusual that God's justice also allows the removal of people from society who will only destroy souls and hurt people?
God is not a 'softy'. He is all loving, but He is also perfect justice. Unlike wimpy fathers who let their kids get away with murder, and do absolutely nothing because of sentiment, God's correction follows each of us in our daily crosses, and sometimes at the hands of secular justice which rightfully has it's authority from God (even if they often abuse it).
-
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The difference is our sensibilities changed with a kinder world.
Um... did you actually read my post?
I was agreeing and adding to what you said. Sorry for the confusion.
-
-
But not all the inmates who rot on death row for years and years as the state stalls their execution needlessly, enjoy the rollercoaster ride of hearings that decide whether they live past this and such a date, and if so, for how long... or trying to be mentally prepared to go when it's time, only to realize day by day that you don't know when death is coming, because the state is too busy trying to humanely postpone the unhappy event.
I repeat, we don't have the death sentence in my country. The situation you describe is indeed horrific and could not exist if the US did not execute its criminals. If the US didn't have the death penalty, people would not be able to spend years waiting on death row. There is nothing humane about dragging out an execution. Your scenario does not negate the importance of prisons, rather, it renders even more brutal the system of death row. Here, there is no such thing, so prisons are different for that reason.
But when you have a person who is mentally ill (as a good many inmates are) who has no intention of not doing a heinous crime again and again if released, you have two choices... drug them up and put them in prison for life... in a lifelong hell to proceed the eternal one... or dispatch them rather than putting them through years of additional torments.
I consider killing someone who is mentally ill murder. If they are aware of the evil they do, that's different. If they are crazy, it's murder.
Prison is not a happy place. It's not even a particularly humane place.
More humane than the death sentence. Plus, why would we expect prisons to be a happy place? It's a punishment after all.
Imagine spending 24/7 with 0 privacy, in a room about the size of most people's bathrooms, in a hostile environment with no rights.
I've been to a trad boarding school :wink:
Edit: I'm being facetious with that last one...
-
Memo to Clare: this is not a trouser thread.
Memo to Mike: That odd taste in your mouth is toe cheese.
-
Memo to Clare: this is not a trouser thread.
Memo to Mike: That odd taste in your mouth is toe cheese.
Coming from someone on a crusade of having people leave the Church I'll take that as a compliment.
-
Talk about not understanding the issue at hand. :wink:
-
What about the torturing of heretics? Was that condoned by the Church or was that done by secular authorities with the Church turning a blind eye?
-
Spiritual death is worse than physical death, and so it is an even graver sin to spread error or immorality to others than is simply murdering others.
-
How come this thread page is so wide? I think I remember seeing the same thing in another thread.
-
Spiritual death is worse than physical death, and so it is an even graver sin to spread error or immorality to others than is simply murdering others.
Really ?
Those that stray in error can be brought back to the one True Faith.
Can you bring back the murdered to life ?
-
The thing is there are cases of those who just do not want the truth and maliciously spread error, Vandaler. The punishment of death would, of course, then be a last resort as with any crime that would require the death penalty.
-
The thing is there are cases of those who just do not want the truth and maliciously spread error, Vandaler. The punishment of death would, of course, then be a last resort as with any crime that would require the death penalty.
-
The thing is there are cases of those who just do not want the truth and maliciously spread error.
Yes, that is wrong, but you make it a case of which is worse in the form of a comparaison.
Not only murder is irreversible, but also, the murderer is solely responsible for the action. He imposes his will on the victim. The one that spreads error finds a willing audience that participate in their own free will.
Also, the one spreading error very rarely do with a malicious intent, in fact, they often believe they are doing well. Can you say the same of a murderer in general ?
I don't like this comparaison. I just feel the need to say it. Sorry. I don't mean to offend.
-
I remember it says somewhere in the Bible, "the fool says in his heart 'there is no God.'"
A heretic may think he does well in spreading his error, but if he knows that he is indeed in error and keeps unrepentantly spreading his error to others, then he is a danger to society.
Also, even though some people would willingly believe the error of a heretic, it can be likely those people would not have bought into the error if they had not been exposed to it or possibly had not had sadly the proper religious instruction. If they had not proper catechesis, then it is even worse for the heretic spreading his error since he would be taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of some individuals if he knew that such people were not properly taught the truth.
-
Well, I'll take my leave from this thread.
It's not for me.