Believe it or not, but this sentence was condemned by the Pope in the bulla "Exsurge Domine", the papal document by which Luther was condemned.So far I have seen three apologetic lines in the Catholic field.
1.- That in those times torture and burning of the heretics was convenient for the public order and hence OK.
Pardon me, but are you saying that if burning people was "convenient" you would approve it? And more importantly are you saying that the Catholic Church condones burning people when it is convenient to do so?
2.- That the sentence must be read in the context of the times. Namely that they were affirming the right of Christian to self-defense against the turks.
This line I found it as a footnote in the excellent "La fe de la Iglesia Católica", ("The faith of the Catholic Church" by Justo Collantes. It is an opinion with some merits as the Turkish threat to the West was real and immediate in those times. Neither, the same book alleges, Luther was against burning heretics as he ordered a brutal repression against Anabaptists.
But, these line has also its demerits. First it is doubtful that the Turks (i.e. the muslisms) could be called heretics as they were not Christians to begin with. In Catholic terms only those baptized can be called heretics (see the Code of Canon Law). Secondly in the context of those times, when burning heretics at the stake was considered perfectly Christian one could expect the Pope to be a little more precise. Thirdly the sentence is so plain even in its Latin rendering ("Hereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritus" is the condemned proposition) that ascribing to it any other sense seems wishful thinking. Fourthly because it is strange speaking about burning in the context of a medieval war. I mean: burning Turks in battle? Well it could happen, but most probably it would be the sword, the spear and the musket which would have done the trick. Don't you think so?
Fifthly the proposition 34 is directed specifically to those matters.
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
Last, but not least, let me make reference to the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church, in his Treatise on Civil Government
http://www.catholicism.org/de-laicis22.html
3.- That the sentence does not define anything relative of morals, that it merely condemns a proposition and hence it is not an infallible statement.
I will deal with it later, or so I hope
1.- That in those times torture and burning of the heretics was convenient for the public order and hence OK.
Pardon me, but are you saying that if burning people was "convenient" you would approve it? And more importantly are you saying that the Catholic Church condones burning people when it is convenient to do so?
2.- That the sentence must be read in the context of the times. Namely that they were affirming the right of Christian to self-defense against the turks.
This line I found it as a footnote in the excellent "La fe de la Iglesia Católica", ("The faith of the Catholic Church" by Justo Collantes. It is an opinion with some merits as the Turkish threat to the West was real and immediate in those times. Neither, the same book alleges, Luther was against burning heretics as he ordered a brutal repression against Anabaptists.
But, these line has also its demerits. First it is doubtful that the Turks (i.e. the muslisms) could be called heretics as they were not Christians to begin with. In Catholic terms only those baptized can be called heretics (see the Code of Canon Law). Secondly in the context of those times, when burning heretics at the stake was considered perfectly Christian one could expect the Pope to be a little more precise. Thirdly the sentence is so plain even in its Latin rendering ("Hereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritus" is the condemned proposition) that ascribing to it any other sense seems wishful thinking. Fourthly because it is strange speaking about burning in the context of a medieval war. I mean: burning Turks in battle? Well it could happen, but most probably it would be the sword, the spear and the musket which would have done the trick. Don't you think so?
Fifthly the proposition 34 is directed specifically to those matters.
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
Last, but not least, let me make reference to the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church, in his Treatise on Civil Government
http://www.catholicism.org/de-laicis22.html
3.- That the sentence does not define anything relative of morals, that it merely condemns a proposition and hence it is not an infallible statement.
I will deal with it later, or so I hope
