Author Topic: Burning heretics (Read 3454 times)

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.

clare · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2007, 10:52:06 AM »

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!

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2007, 11:35:36 AM »

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.

clare · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2007, 11:42:32 AM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

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.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2007, 11:49:15 AM »

Quote from: Clare

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto
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.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2007, 11:50:53 AM »

"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.

clare · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2007, 11:52:49 AM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

Fine and agreed. If you believe he was making that connection than you have every right to make such a statement.

Thank you.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2007, 12:21:45 PM »

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.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2007, 01:16:50 PM »

Quote from: Dulcamara

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.

lthngsbrtnbtfl · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2007, 03:19:58 PM »

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...

clare · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2007, 03:23:07 PM »

Quote from: lthngsbrtnbtfl

...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!

Dulcamara · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2007, 03:28:49 PM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The difference is our sensibilities changed with a kinder world.

Um... did you actually read my post?

Adesto · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2007, 05:49:34 PM »

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.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2007, 06:04:43 PM »

"I for one am completely opposed to it."

What is the Church's stance on the death penalty?

Adesto · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2007, 06:07:16 PM »

Edit: I am talking about the death penalty of today, not the burning of heretics in Luther's time.