The Burning of Heretics

[Rhamiel]

By burning people alive? Or slow roasting them in some cases.

there was not a separation of church and state
so attacking the religion of the king could also be seen as attacking the legitimacy of the king who ruled by Divine Right

treason is still a Capitol Crime in many modern countries, the USA included

so the crime is a sin against God, can damage the souls of many people in an area (look at how heresies have spread and became entrenched in some places) and in many cases could also be treasonous

look at the deaths and political upheaval that was caused by the Hussite Revolts and the Albigensian Crusade
both were political revolts that started as heresies
so the suppression of heresy could have saved many lives

and how was ANYTHING suppressed in the middle ages? threat of murder
they were violent times, rule of law was weak

poaching rabbits in the kings forest? dead
counterfeiting coins? dead
they were violent times, it was how they discouraged stuff

 

[Tallguy88]

there was not a separation of church and state
so attacking the religion of the king could also be seen as attacking the legitimacy of the king who ruled by Divine Right

treason is still a Capitol Crime in many modern countries, the USA included

so the crime is a sin against God, can damage the souls of many people in an area (look at how heresies have spread and became entrenched in some places) and in many cases could also be treasonous

look at the deaths and political upheaval that was caused by the Hussite Revolts and the Albigensian Crusade
both were political revolts that started as heresies
so the suppression of heresy could have saved many lives

and how was ANYTHING suppressed in the middle ages? threat of murder
they were violent times, rule of law was weak

poaching rabbits in the kings forest? dead
counterfeiting coins? dead
they were violent times, it was how they discouraged stuff

And we know better now. We can say "that was bad" and "it was wrong of the Church to have supported such things" without it being an attack on the Church itself. JPII and BXVI were correct to apologize for the past actions of the Church and/or the Church's not speaking against certain things.

 

[Rhamiel]

And we know better now. We can say "that was bad" and "it was wrong of the Church to have supported such things" without it being an attack on the Church itself. JPII and BXVI were correct to apologize for the past actions of the Church and/or the Church's not speaking against certain things.

I do not agree with you
I do not think that it was bad

was it bad to have had the death penalty for murder in the Middle Ages?
I am not talking about the death penalty now, I am talking about back then

was that a "bad thing"?

 

[Erose]

And we know better now. We can say "that was bad" and "it was wrong of the Church to have supported such things" without it being an attack on the Church itself. JPII and BXVI were correct to apologize for the past actions of the Church and/or the Church's not speaking against certain things.

I think this statement needs to be reworded to "And we think we know better now." The idea that our society is any less barbaric than the Middle Ages is a ludicrous statement.

 

[Erose]

I do not agree with you
I do not think that it was bad

was it bad to have had the death penalty for murder in the Middle Ages?
I am not talking about the death penalty now, I am talking about back then

was that a "bad thing"?

Being lock up until death back then would have been worse than death anyway. The jails back then were not the nice little living suites we give our current prisoners.

 

[ebia]

Being lock up until death back then would have been worse than death anyway. The jails back then were not the nice little living suites we give our current prisoners.

Still most people seem to prefer to stay alive. And one can hardly call burning a merciful way of executing someone.

 

[Erose]

Now one of the defenses I tend to hear about the Medieval Catholic Church was that it was the State that caused people to be burned at the stake for holding a heretical belief.

Yes which is true.

However if in the modern day there was a country that still had Catholicism as its state religion and enacted laws that burned heretics and non-Catholics for their beliefs I can almost guarantee that the Pope would state that this was sinful and not following Catholic teaching.

The key here is "in the modern day". One of the greatest fallacies that I see so many people fall into is to look at a point in history, through the lenses of modernism or post-modernism view points. Today is a much different world than any other point in history.

So what does that make of everyone in the Middle Ages? Is every Pope and priest that allowed the torture and killing of heretics now in Hell? Wouldn't that include St. Thomas More who the Church states is in Heaven right now, after all he ordered the death of heretics did he not?

No. The Church has never taught that the State doesn't have the authority to protect its civilians, whether from outside forces or inside criminals, with capital punishment if necessary. As Rhamiel has pointed out, there was no separation of Church and State during the middle ages. Kings rightfully viewed heresy as a very strong possibility of rebellion, and dealt with it as such. And like Rhamiel wrote in one of his posts, heresy was the cause of much rebellion and bloodshed throughout the history of Christian Europe.

Heresy today, doesn't have the same effect as it did in the middle ages due to the separation of Church and State. Thus it is viewed at the state level as nothing threatening.

Anyway the key here, is to understand the times upon which you are dealing with. You just cannot judge any point of history with our modern understandings, because there never has been a period in history like the one we are in now.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

Being lock up until death back then would have been worse than death anyway. The jails back then were not the nice little living suites we give our current prisoners.

Nice little living suite? Clearly spoken by someone who has never stepped foot inside a major institution.

 

[Erose]

Still most people seem to prefer to stay alive. And one can hardly call burning a merciful way of executing someone.

You couldn't put people away for life back then. You are talking about something that would have been extremely difficult to do. They just didn't have the resources for such things back then.

Anyway I guess a guillotine would have been better, but I could see some communities not possessing such "modern and I am sure expense" apparatuses. Hanging would have been better, I guess. But we do know that during that time, executions were made public so that they could be used as a deterrent for criminal behavior. Executions don't work today, for they are normally private affairs.

 

[Erose]

Nice little living suite? Clearly spoken by someone who has never stepped foot inside a major institution.

Actually have visited a couple and have worked in one as well. They are normally clean, three square meals, most of the larger prison systems have jobs for the prisoners to go to. They have beds and a toilet as well.

Jail cells even back 150 years ago, were pretty bad places to stay long term. Sleeping on hay instead of a bead, bread and water was the staple diet, lice was common, mites, bugs, rats, and disease as well. No not a very good place to be. The prisons that we house prisoners in America are condos in comparison.

 

[Tallguy88]

I do not agree with you
I do not think that it was bad

You do not disagree with me, you disagree with Pope John Paul II.

was it bad to have had the death penalty for murder in the Middle Ages?
I am not talking about the death penalty now, I am talking about back then

was that a "bad thing"?

Provided it was a swift death after a fair trial, then no, it would not have been a bad thing.

But we're not talking about murder. We're talking about holding heretical beliefs. The Church teaches that every man has a fundamental right to follow his conscience, even into heresy, without threat of force or coercion. We're also talking, tangentially, about the method of execution. The CCC teaches that in the rare cases where the death penalty is justifiable, it must be done in a humane way.

 

[Tallguy88]

I think this statement needs to be reworded to "And we think we know better now." The idea that our society is any less barbaric than the Middle Ages is a ludicrous statement.

The Church teaches that the death penalty should rarely be used, and when used, should be humane.

Burning someone alive is hardly in keeping with the current teaching of the Church.

 

[Tigg]

I don't give a fig if heresy is sufferable by burning in hell. That does not give the state, any state, then or now, and our Church, then or now, to give the death penalty by being burned to death. Those who did, state and church (and those being a party to such) shall themselves burn in hell. That is MO and I am sticking to it.

 

[Tallguy88]

I don't give a fig if heresy is sufferable by burning in hell. That does not give the state, any state, then or now, and our Church, then or now, to give the death penalty by being burned to death. Those who did, state and church (and those being a party to such) shall themselves burn in hell. That is MO and I am sticking to it.

Agree totally. Except I would change your next to last sentence to "if they died unrepentant, they shall burn in hell."

 

[Tigg]

They burned heretics at the stake out of compassion for them. If they were destined to burn and be tortured eternally in hell, then the hope is that in the last moments within the searing flames, the person is inspired to perform an act of perfect contrition and be spared that agony.

All for the small price of being burned.

Alan

How sick. Small price indeed. Last moments of contrition. Out of compassion, my ass. Sick-o's. Prayers for all those burned at the stake.

PS: I am not criting you, just so ya know.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That seems to read things through a rather anachronistic lens of separation of church and state.

You'd be wrong.
Since the state and Church [Catholic] separated - ppl are more free to sin and more ppl go to hell now.

The Church kept the state from allowing antipathy towards morality.
Tho - and i fear this must be repeated ad infinitum - the Church didnt control the state.

IF we still had the Church as the only Christian teacher as was proper from and since Christ Himself - and the government abiding by their jurisdiction - we frankly wouldnt even need to fight for the rights of unborn babies. The elderly, and hetero marriages. And thats just a few things to note.

Additionally if the Church led nations - less warring except in defense - would happen.

The whole break off from the Church [because of the protesting in the late 1700's] led many into atheism. The coined phrase - 'ahhh the enlightenment'...
And or the filling up seats for hell....one way tickets.

[The era of peace when the Church was able to lead the world in all morality ended - ie - when satan was unchained] - and now its no holds bar.
Not exactly good for ppl. Everyone was still free in the Church and her teachings - we cannot judge a Church who led ppl in dignity and human freedom with a few scoundrels - yet this is where the power play comes in from revisionists to suggest the Church was like a cruel monarchy. But she kept the cruelest from over reaching their power and destorying even their own.

Consider since the break - since the separation - millions died under atheistic leaders.

The Church in all ages past kept Kings feet on the ground and wouldnt allow massive slaughters. It was the Church who also gave us the most wonderful institutions...hospitals - schools.

Even in ages of what we deem tyrannical - the Popes always made laws that kept the hands of the Kings from harming ppl. Once that break happened - nobody cares about the true moral teachings - nobody even cares if government gives us horrendous laws to provide for the free license of sins.

And so is the destruction of the self imploding nations...

 

[WarriorAngel]

I don't give a fig if heresy is sufferable by burning in hell. That does not give the state, any state, then or now, and our Church, then or now, to give the death penalty by being burned to death. Those who did, state and church (and those being a party to such) shall themselves burn in hell. That is MO and I am sticking to it.

Thats fine - but consider in the times of the Apostles - they could be put to death by Jews [as was the right among Jews] who would break faith. The 1st Christians were considered a Jewish sect.

What did Paul say? Let it be done if you can prove i am wrong.

No one could.

So again - we cant expect to judge our times to anyone elses.
It was the long tireless work of the Church that led us to a more civil society.
Unfortunately - every revised book and drama on TV shows the Church as militant miscreants.

Lord have mercy on all the falsehoods surrounding God's good ppl and good things done thru His Church.

 

[Erose]

The Church teaches that the death penalty should rarely be used, and when used, should be humane.

Burning someone alive is hardly in keeping with the current teaching of the Church.

My comment was not about the death penalty. It was concerning the ludicrous statement made that "we know better today". We don't know better today. Our society today is by far more barbaric than it was in the middle ages. You speak of a few burned at the stake, while millions are killed each year for more selfish reasons than to prevent an open rebellion. In fact I would say that the Middle Ages should shame us modern folks, who should know better, but sadly don't.

 

[Erose]

I don't give a fig if heresy is sufferable by burning in hell. That does not give the state, any state, then or now, and our Church, then or now, to give the death penalty by being burned to death. Those who did, state and church (and those being a party to such) shall themselves burn in hell. That is MO and I am sticking to it.

I bet God is happy to have you around to tell Him how to judge, no?

 

[WarriorAngel]

My comment was not about the death penalty. It was concerning the ludicrous statement made that "we know better today". We don't know better today. Our society today is by far more barbaric than it was in the middle ages. You speak of a few burned at the stake, while millions are killed each year for more selfish reasons than to prevent an open rebellion. In fact I would say that the Middle Ages should shame us modern folks, who should know better, but sadly don't.

Thats true.

3000 died in the Inquisitions. I believe some were in the guillotine too and not burned.
But 50+ million innocent babies today shows we still need the Church to have a foot in the door of governments to hold them back from their horrible laws.