The Burning of Heretics

[Tallguy88]

i just saw your sig - that should tell you why JPll apologized.

Arguing with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

That doesn't make sense in context, though. JPII apologized on his own initiative. And it wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark. He had an entire ceremony where about ten Cardinals came up and individually apologized on behalf of the Church for a specific past wrongdoing while the Pope presided over the whole thing. Cardinal Ratzinger (future Pope Benedict) participated in this ceremony and apologized for the Inquisition. This was fitting since he was head of the Inquisition's modern incarnation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

[Tigg]

To clarify, were those burned at the stake heretics? So says the state and church back then. All of em? Or some of them? I don't know. That is supposed to be God to judge and send them to hell after their death. I do not believe God authorizes any state or church to judge and burn anybody to death in the hopes of them at the last second repenting. Nonsense. Has anyone of us burned our finger or worse. Hurt like hello didn't it. Now imagine your whole body in flames and your lungs searing with the heat from those flames. I don't believe anyone could repent of anything going thru that.

I do make judgement of those, state or church putting anyone to death for any of their faith or lack there of. Let them live and pray and hope they change.

Yes IMO we as a species are a barbaric bunch of people. Read the news and so much we know not of. Makes me wonder why God created such a miserable species.

Hope this clears up my supposed judgement of em being heretics. IMO, it matters not if they were or not. Judging them as such and burning them was atrocious.

EDIT: They burned at least one Saint, Joan of Arc.
2nd Edit: Yep I did say those who burnt those poor people themselves would wind up in hell. Murder means (without repentance) hell bound. I judged them but maybe they in turn should have been burned in the hopes that they would repent of burning those poor peoples.

 

[Erose]

I have clarified my position. You should take me at my word that I was not agreeing with that specific part of her post.

I get it. At least you admit that you were wrong in defending her position on who should and should not be in hell.

Sorry. It was wrong then, it's still wrong now.

If it wasn't wrong back then, why would the Pope have apologized?

You can make that evaluation, if you wish. The pope did apologize concerning this; but I also think in doing so he was suffering under the same fallacy as you are. There were many saints, including St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as popes that supported the practice when it was necessary to do so. Not in all cases obviously but when it was merited, they viewed it as a just practice.

Look I am not defending the practice, nor am I advocating for the practice to return. What I am having an issue with, is this fallacy of judging every stage in history with a modern outlook; and then calling these people evil and that they should be burning in hell for what they did.

They were not living in a modern society, nor did they have the prison systems we have today, not was there a separation of Church and State either. Heresy usually led to rebellion against the established state, which led to 1000s of men and women and children being killed in that rebellion; by both the state and the rebels.

Today, heresy leads to just another denomination or church. Nothing more. No blood shed, and no one killed.

We have an extremely higher population. Can you say that we kill more people, as a percentage of total population, than the medievals did? If so, can you offer any evidence to back up your claim?

I would say yes. Granted they didn't keep statistics as we do today, but when you add in all the men and women killed by war (remember the two greatest wars in history, WWI and WWII) in the 20th century, the concentration camps and prisons of the Nazis and Communists, all the killing of babies by the Western societies, etc., etc. I would say that there is no comparison. Our society by far is more evil, than the Middle Ages ever thought about being.

The number of men and women killed for heresy yearly even during the worse part of the Spanish Inquisition , is less than the number of criminals killed yearly by Texas.

No. No comparison at all.

 

[Tallguy88]

I get it. At least you admit that you were wrong in defending her position on who should and should not be in hell.

I was not wrong because I never held the position in question. I may not have been clear enough before, but I am now. The Church only judges some people to be in heaven. It doesn't pronounce on the rest.

You can make that evaluation, if you wish. The pope did apologize concerning this; but I also think in doing so he was suffering under the same fallacy as you are. There were many saints, including St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as popes that supported the practice when it was necessary to do so. Not in all cases obviously but when it was merited, they viewed it as a just practice.

We can agree to disagree.

Look I am not defending the practice, nor am I advocating for the practice to return. What I am having an issue with, is this fallacy of judging every stage in history with a modern outlook; and then calling these people evil and that they should be burning in hell for what they did.

What outlook would we use but our own?

They were not living in a modern society, nor did they have the prison systems we have today, not was there a separation of Church and State either. Heresy usually led to rebellion against the established state, which led to 1000s of men and women and children being killed in that rebellion; by both the state and the rebels.

Today, heresy leads to just another denomination or church. Nothing more. No blood shed, and no one killed.

I would say yes. Granted they didn't keep statistics as we do today, but when you add in all the men and women killed by war (remember the two greatest wars in history, WWI and WWII) in the 20th century, the concentration camps and prisons of the Nazis and Communists, all the killing of babies by the Western societies, etc., etc. I would say that there is no comparison. Our society by far is more evil, than the Middle Ages ever thought about being.

I don't dispute that the 20th Century had a lot of evil and killing. But that doesn't negate the evil of past societies. Using the argument you've been using, people living 500 years in the future will have no right to judge our society because it's different from theirs. I don't buy it. We should point out past societies' mistakes do we don't repeat them. Future societies will have the same right regarding us.

The number of men and women killed for heresy yearly even during the worse part of the Spanish Inquisition , is less than the number of criminals killed yearly by Texas.

No. No comparison at all.

Texas executed 16 people in 2013, 15 in 2012, 13 in 2011, and 17 in 2010. I'm pretty sure the Inquisition exceeded those numbers easily.

 

[Basil the Great]

It is true that the Church itself never burned any heretics. However, it must be noted that the Catholic Encyclopedia says that a minimum of five Popes, and probably more, mandated that the civil authorities impose the death penalty (which was burning at the stake) for heretics, or face the pain of excommunication for failing to do so.

 

[Erose]

I was not wrong because I never held the position in question. I may not have been clear enough before, but I am now. The Church only judges some people to be in heaven. It doesn't pronounce on the rest.

At that point we were not talking about what the Church did. Tigg stated that she hopes that the people responsible were in hell. When I challenged her on this, you defended her position, i.e. you supported the position. If you didn't agree with her position, then why did you defend her position? This doesn't make sense, unless you were just being argumentative. I will no longer discuss this point again. I accept then that you no longer support Tigg's assessment on the final destination of the those involved in the judicial processes during the time upon which we speak.

What outlook would we use but our own?

Theirs actually. You need to do your best to assess the situation that they were in, i.e. put yourself in their shoes; and then evaluate the situation. It is as simple as that. When evaluating moments in history, using a modern viewpoint doesn't provide a correct assessment of the situation.

I don't dispute that the 20th Century had a lot of evil and killing. But that doesn't negate the evil of past societies. Using the argument you've been using, people living 500 years in the future will have no right to judge our society because it's different from theirs. I don't buy it. We should point out past societies' mistakes do we don't repeat them. Future societies will have the same right regarding us.

No it doesn't. But before we can claim how much better we are than other generations then we need to make sure that we are. We aren't pure and simple.

Texas executed 16 people in 2013, 15 in 2012, 13 in 2011, and 17 in 2010. I'm pretty sure the Inquisition exceeded those numbers easily.

Hmm. The Spanish Inquisition lasted for 356 years, with an estimated executions being between 3000-5000 during that period. That equates out to about 8.4-14.4 executions per year. So, yeah Texas sadly wins.

 

[Tallguy88]

At that point we were not talking about what the Church did. Tigg stated that she hopes that the people responsible were in hell. When I challenged her on this, you defended her position, i.e. you supported the position. If you didn't agree with her position, then why did you defend her position? This doesn't make sense, unless you were just being argumentative. I will no longer discuss this point again. I accept then that you no longer support Tigg's assessment on the final destination of the those involved in the judicial processes during the time upon which we speak.

You keep saying I meant something I didn't mean and refuse to take my word that I didn't mean it. Who's just being argumentative?

Theirs actually. You need to do your best to assess the situation that they were in, i.e. put yourself in their shoes; and then evaluate the situation. It is as simple as that. When evaluating moments in history, using a modern viewpoint doesn't provide a correct assessment of the situation.

We can try, but can never fully move out of our own prejudices and views.

No it doesn't. But before we can claim how much better we are than other generations then we need to make sure that we are. We aren't pure and simple.

Better in some ways, not in others.

I feel like we're on a merry-go-round. I'm cool with just agreeing to disagree.

Hmm. The Spanish Inquisition lasted for 356 years, with an estimated executions being between 3000-5000 during that period. That equates out to about 8.4-14.4 executions per year. So, yeah Texas sadly wins.

Still don't buy it. But even if I did, it's one thing to kill a killer. It's another to kill a Jew who fake-converted so he wouldn't be kicked out of his country (and yes, I realize this was more a state thing than a Church thing).

 

[Rhamiel]

Still don't buy it. But even if I did, it's one thing to kill a killer. It's another to kill a Jew who fake-converted so he wouldn't be kicked out of his country (and yes, I realize this was more a state thing than a Church thing).

not all the people tried by the Inquisition were converts
some were charged with witchcraft
others with other heresies

heresy is a serious thing, why is it one thing to put a murderer to death and another to put a heretic to death?

the murderer can only hurt a few people
the damage done by a heretic can go on for generations, centuries even if their words are written down

 

[packermann]

In modern times, we ask a ruler "What right to do you have to rule over us?" He could say "I was duly elected to be your leader". But that is now. We have democracy and separation of church and state. These are modern concepts, and I think it is wrong to judge the old times based on our modern standard.
Before Christ, the Roman emperor would have answered differently the question ""What right to do you have to rule over us?" He would have said "Because I am a god" Emperor worship was tied to the justification the emperor had to rule. That is why the empeors saw Christianity such a threat. If Jesus is Lord, the Caesar is not Lord.

When Christianity became legal, the rulers still found a way to use religion to their advantage. The emperor and kings were crowned by the pope. Since the pope was a successor to Peter, who was ordained by Jesus Christ to be the leader of Church, this ultimately gave Jesus Christ the seal of approval. Democracy was not dicovered. Nobody thought of the secret ballot yet. The ruler's justification to rule was based on the Church. This does not mean things always went smoothly between the rulers and the Church, but the rulers needed the Church to keep the peace. And the Church went along to keep the pease between the Church and the State.

Heretics knew this. Most heresies were for political reasons. If it can be proven that the Church has one of its doctrines wrong, then the Church is wrong. If the Church is wrong, then the ruler, backed by the Church, is wrong. If the ruler is wrong then that means the country needs a new ruler. What better candidate than the one who pointed out that they were all wrong?

So heresy back then was not just some person with a different view on religion. The person was advocating insurrection, revolution, the violent overthrow of the ruler. It is understandable in that culture that heresy was a capital crime.
But today we have separation of church and state. A person's religion usually means nothing on how that person would vote. A person's religious view usually does not effect his politics - so we have become more tolerant of differing views of religion. It is not that we are more tolerant today than they were. Look at the hostility between Democrats and Republicans, or Feminists and Traditionalists. Look at how many wars we had in the 20th century. We are still intolerant in politics but more tolerant in religion because religion has less infuence on our politics.

 

[MikeK]

Which is the usual stand of the Church. And as barbaric as revisionists have claimed the Church was - she had the least number of heretical deaths under her belt.

You are relaying an opinion according to todays society - not by their standards.

Back during the reforms - these men were assaulting souls and killing many who they led away.
Back in their time - they had a different culture.

So its always easy to look back in history and make blanket remarks - when measuring things to our times. But its wrong to do.

Just as we cannot compare the actions of the Jews killing the Christians in Biblical times to our times.
St Paul was under threat of the death penalty - and he agreed to it [based on Judaic heresy so to speak] - if they could prove he was wrong.


We cant apologize for history in our times - as tho it was wrong. Because for them it was right. They didnt have invincible ignorance. They were for all practical purposes - full of willfulness.

Getting thru those periods is precisely what led to our modern understandings.

Just as ppl in the future wont be able to judge us for liberalism if we were to all go back to conservatism - because they should know it was a great salesman technique to lead many away from the basic principles - of the true teachings.

I am also glad. But let's not judge them on what we today do - because it is completely cultural.

You are advocating for the ethical position of cultural relativism. It is not compatible with Catholocism.

 

[Erose]

Still don't buy it. But even if I did, it's one thing to kill a killer. It's another to kill a Jew who fake-converted so he wouldn't be kicked out of his country (and yes, I realize this was more a state thing than a Church thing).

Quite a bit of simplification here isn't it? But whatever.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

You are advocating for the ethical position of cultural relativism. It is not compatible with Catholicism.

Just to note, I've been reading the discussion thus far and until now I didn't see a need to jump in again. However this statement gets to my point.

Isn't it cultural relativism to say that God judged the people of the Middle Ages differently from how he'll judge a person from the modern era? Isn't God never changing? If he approves of the killing of a heretic for the protection of the flock back then would that mean he approves of it now?

 

[Tallguy88]

Quite a bit of simplification here isn't it? But whatever.

Not if I read the CAF article right.

 

[MikeK]

Just to note, I've been reading the discussion thus far and until now I didn't see a need to jump in again. However this statement gets to my point.

Isn't it cultural relativism to say that God judged the people of the Middle Ages differently from how he'll judge a person from the modern era? Isn't God never changing? If he approves of the killing of a heretic for the protection of the flock back then would that mean he approves of it now?

I'm not at all qualified to speak on what God should or should not do. I don't believe it was ever morally acceptable for humans to kill heretics.

 

[FlaviusAetius]

I'm not at all qualified to speak on what God should or should not do. I don't believe it was ever morally acceptable for humans to kill heretics.

I know I am not qualified to speak on what is acceptable for God, but there is enough reference to using violence against heathens and heretics in the Bible and Church history. So I need to know if God simply judges us differently based on what is generally accepted practices of the time or are we simply becoming lukewarm to God through our tolerance of heresy and sin and will thus be spit out by him on Judgement day.