The Wife of Martin Guerre: An argument for tolerance and graciousness towards heretics

[public hermit]

I came across this argument while reading about the Huguenot refugee and philosopher, Pierre Bayle. The conclusion of the argument is, "The erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth.” The argument is based on the true story of the wife of Martin Guerre. Here's the argument as given in SEP:

Bayle, whose native Le Carla was the next village over from the site of the actual events, would have known about the case from the local retelling of it, which has been continuous from the fifteenth century to the present. The short of the story is that Martin Guerre goes off to war, leaving behind his wife, child and problematic existence, and is replaced eight years later by an impostor who claims all his rights, including those of the marriage bed. According to Bayle, because she thinks the man is her husband, the wife, in ceding him those rights, not only is inculpable of an act that otherwise would be adulterous, but actually performs her duty. He concludes, more generally, “the erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayle/#BayTol
Martin Guerre - Wikipedia

Like the wife of Martin Guerre, the heretic is acting according to what he/she believes is the truth. As Martin Luther pointed out, "To act against conscience is neither right nor safe." According to this line of reasoning, how then should the heretic be treated? They should be treated with tolerance and grace, for they are not culpable for their error and can only be shown the truth through love, prayer, and reasoned dialogue until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in their hearts (2 Peter 1:19).

Do you agree? Why or why not?

Edit: Maybe a more interesting question would be: Are heretics culpable for their error? Bayle's position is that they are not. What do you think?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I came across this argument while reading about the Huguenot refugee and philosopher, Pierre Bayle. The conclusion of the argument is, "The erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth.” The argument is based on the true story of the wife of Martin Guerre. Here's the argument as given in SEP:

Bayle, whose native Le Carla was the next village over from the site of the actual events, would have known about the case from the local retelling of it, which has been continuous from the fifteenth century to the present. The short of the story is that Martin Guerre goes off to war, leaving behind his wife, child and problematic existence, and is replaced eight years later by an impostor who claims all his rights, including those of the marriage bed. According to Bayle, because she thinks the man is her husband, the wife, in ceding him those rights, not only is inculpable of an act that otherwise would be adulterous, but actually performs her duty. He concludes, more generally, “the erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayle/#BayTol
Martin Guerre - Wikipedia

Like the wife of Martin Guerre, the heretic is acting according to what he/she believes is the truth. As Martin Luther pointed out, "To act against conscience is neither right nor safe." According to this line of reasoning, how then should the heretic be treated? They should be treated with tolerance and grace, for they are not culpable of their error and can only be shown the truth through love, prayer, and reasoned dialogue until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in their hearts (2 Peter 1:19).

Do you agree? Why or why not?

Agree. Love your neighbor as yourself no matter how wrong you think he may be. After all, who would persecute oneself for being wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I came across this argument while reading about the Huguenot refugee and philosopher, Pierre Bayle. The conclusion of the argument is, "The erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth.” The argument is based on the true story of the wife of Martin Guerre. Here's the argument as given in SEP:

Bayle, whose native Le Carla was the next village over from the site of the actual events, would have known about the case from the local retelling of it, which has been continuous from the fifteenth century to the present. The short of the story is that Martin Guerre goes off to war, leaving behind his wife, child and problematic existence, and is replaced eight years later by an impostor who claims all his rights, including those of the marriage bed. According to Bayle, because she thinks the man is her husband, the wife, in ceding him those rights, not only is inculpable of an act that otherwise would be adulterous, but actually performs her duty. He concludes, more generally, “the erroneous conscience procures for error the same rights and privileges that the orthodox conscience procures for truth.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayle/#BayTol
Martin Guerre - Wikipedia

Like the wife of Martin Guerre, the heretic is acting according to what he/she believes is the truth. As Martin Luther pointed out, "To act against conscience is neither right nor safe." According to this line of reasoning, how then should the heretic be treated? They should be treated with tolerance and grace, for they are not culpable for their error and can only be shown the truth through love, prayer, and reasoned dialogue until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in their hearts (2 Peter 1:19).

Do you agree? Why or why not?

Edit: Maybe a more interesting question would be: Are heretics culpable for their error? Bayle's position is that they are not. What do you think?

Yes, heretics are culpable for at least some of their error. Therefore, due to their lack of proper thought and for their negligent obeisance to authority, and toward expedient order in aiding the heretics in realizing their position of inadequate belief(s), the usual measure of 39 lashings with a wet noodle shall be promptly extended to a full 40, a meet measure which I've very often found to be quite effective ... **ahem**

As for the apostate, Bayle: what can I say? He bayled out and that was that!

 

[public hermit]

Yes, heretics are culpable for at least some of their error. Therefore, due to their lack of proper thought and for their negligent obeisance to authority, and toward expedient order in aiding the heretics in realizing their position of inadequate belief(s), the usual measure of 39 lashings with a wet noodle shall be promptly extended to a full 40, a meet measure which I've very often found to be quite effective ... **ahem**

As for the apostate, Bayle: what can I say? He bayled out and that was that!

Poor Bayle.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, heretics are culpable for at least some of their error.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. If Ms. Guerre believed the man she was with was her husband, would you think her irresponsible for fulfilling her intention (and God's will) as his wife? I can't see why. On the other hand, if she refused to function as his wife, while still believing him to be her husband, holding her culpable makes sense. In that case, and all things being equal, she had a responsibility and shirked it.

In the same manner, if the heretic believes his position is true, should he be held culpable (or, seen as shirking some epistemic responsibility) for holding to what seems undeniably to him as the truth? It's hard to see why. To the contrary, that's the very definition of integrity. On the other hand, if he told you he believed the orthodox position, while actually holding to a heretical one, that would be a matter in which he has failed his duty.

Poor Bayle may have been an apostate skeptic (I don't know that), but he did have a point (other than the highest part of his head).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. If Ms. Guerre believed the man she was with was her husband, would you think her irresponsible for fulfilling her intention (and God's will) as his wife? I can't see why. On the other hand, if she refused to function as his wife, while still believing him to be her husband, holding her culpable makes sense. In that case, and all things being equal, she had a responsibility and shirked it.

In the same manner, if the heretic believes his position is true, should he be held culpable (or, seen as shirking some epistemic responsibility) for holding to what seems undeniably to him as the truth? It's hard to see why. To the contrary, that's the very definition of integrity. On the other hand, if he told you he believed the orthodox position, while actually holding to a heretical one, that would be a matter in which he has failed his duty.

Poor Bayle may have been an apostate skeptic (I don't know that), but he did have a point (other than the highest part of his head).

I agree with you that I can't see why Ms. Guerre isn't at least somewhat responsible since it's anything but clear to me that she did all she could to ascertain the authenticity of the person who claimed to be her long lost husband. I think this argument isn't analogous to the religious one. However, even though I think this is this case, I can see the need for religious tolerance, for the following three reasons:

1) It is, I think, self-evident that no one person can know everything there is to know about the Trinity and thereby, each of us should be very, very, very circumspect in inserting our ideas into the public political and legal social frame. It's one thing to criticize or disagree with another person about what exactly the Bible is and what it means, but it's another to bring out the ol' Iron Maiden and impose upon one's fellow spiritual travelers the exactitudes of the beautitudes when to do so would ... belie the whole general notion of Christian integrity.

2) ....might there be just a hint of expected Tolerence from the Lord when we read Revelation 22:11, maybe just a smidgen ?

3) We all want to be understood, even as we each stand in our own cognitive shortcomings. We all also feel grief when we see our family members and neighbors beaten down or maybe killed for holding opinions that diverge from the State of Regulations, and in reflecting upon this, we might ask the following question?: Should we not at least feel a modicum of compassion for Pierre Bayle in the fact that the some of the impetus that drove him to express his criticisms of the bible and of state sponsored religious legislation came by his having known that his father and brothers were killed in France as a result of religious persecution ???

 

[public hermit]

Should we not at least feel some compassion for Pierre Bayle in the fact that the some of the impetus that drove him to express his criticisms of the bible and of state sponsored religious legislation came by his having known that his father and brothers wee killed in France as a result of religious persecution ???

Good thoughts. I appreciate your comments, Philo. I agree that his own experience must have had an influence on how he saw things.