Why does heresy no longer occur as a formal charge?

[zippy2006]

In the recent thread on heretics a common claim was something like, "Christian churches used to charge people with heresy and impose penalties, but they don't anymore." I think this is factually accurate, but I want to raise the question of why heresy no longer has much of a function within Christian churches. Why are formal charges of heresy "old hat," and relatively uncommon in our day and age?*

For example, from what I can find, the last two times the Catholic Church charged anyone with heresy were 2004 and 1997 (link - Reidy was eventually convicted).

(Although this thread is about charging heretics with heresy, I will still link to my thread on propositional heresy, which is related. ViaCrucis' post on heresy is also useful.)

Spoiler: Disputing the premise

Those who wish to argue that heresy is still alive and well, and is no less common today than it was in centuries past, are of course welcome to argue their position.

* A formal charge of heresy is a charge of heresy leveled by a church authority in their official capacity.

 

[zippy2006]

My answer would revolve around three things:

1. The Christian Church has become more of a voluntary association and less of a public and cultural institution.
2. According to our pluralistic culture and the well-known positions of most churches, dissenters will tend to depart and start their own church rather than indulge in heretical acts.
3. Political correctness dictates inclusivity, such that even those guilty of heretical acts should not be penalized. This is also related to the religious indifferentism ushered in by the Enlightenment.

A fourth and related phenomenon is that propositional Christianity has become passé, and heresy goes with it.

 

[zippy2006]

As I read more about the heresy trial of Ned Reidy it seems that formal charges of heresy are extremely rare, and that Reidy's was one of the only trials in U.S. history (link). What is also odd is the secrecy of the trial. What was the evidence? In what did the charge of heresy consist? If none of this is made public, how can it be a charge or conviction of heresy?

What seems to have happened is that an ex-priest was causing confusion and the San Bernadino diocese wanted to distance itself from him. It did so in the rather unprecedented way of a heresy trial. But at the end of the day no one seems to know what heresy Reidy is supposed to be guilty of. This looks like a standard case of schism rather than heresy.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am unhappy to report that there still are heretics, but I am happy to to report that, to mitigate that great sorrow, the Orthodox churches continue to excommunicate them, rather than allowing them to disseminate their heresy without consequence.

For example, in 2016 Matthew Heimbach joined the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and in the process of his reception claimed to Fr. Peter J. Gilquist that he had renounced his notorious racist ideology. It turned out this was not the case, and no sooner had he been received, he started posting articles to the extent that Orthodoxy is the ideal church because it embraces racial segregation for purposes of worship, which is not only untrue, but actually, we define the idea of racially segregated worship as Ethnophyletism, and so Matthew Heimbach was instructed by the Fr. Gilquist and his bishop to recant those statements, and when he refused, he was excommunicated until such time as he repents.

Unfortunately he yet to do so, so we should pray that he does.

I could find other examples, but it is depressing, and there aren’t that many people who have been excommunicated or anathematized, since there aren’t very many heretics, and since most of those who have been aren’t actual neo-Nazis, well, I fear if I discuss their situation openly it could cause resentment and be a stumbling block to their excommunication.

Whereas in the case of Matthew Heimbach, his reinstatement is conditional on his admitting publically that ethnophyletism and racism and the ideology of National Socialism are wrong, and incompatible with Orthodoxy, which is based on God’s infinite love for all people, and which declares what is taught by the Holy Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians: “there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus.”

 

[The Liturgist]

According to our pluralistic culture and the well-known positions of most churches, dissenters will tend to depart and start their own church rather than indulge in heretical acts.

You would think, but that’s not the case. For example, several major American churches were recently taken over by clergy who, in opposition to the wishes of the majority of members of their denominations expressed at repeated conventions, decided that it was necessary to seize control in order to ensure that they could continue to contradict the clear Scriptural guidance, as interpreted by the early church and most other Christians throughout history, on the issue of human sexual ethics, promoting various forms of gross sexual immorality and profaning the institution of Holy Matrimony.

There was no need for them to do this - they could have formed their own new denomination, or joined one of the many churches that had already embraced this false teaching. Indeed there is one at least entire denomination set up specifically to cater to such people. But that wasn’t enough.

 

[zippy2006]

Whereas in the case of Matthew Heimbach, his reinstatement is conditional on his admitting publically that ethnophyletism and racism and the ideology of National Socialism are wrong, and incompatible with Orthodoxy...

This is an interesting case, but it is also complicated given the fact that racism is a cultural heresy which is enforced de rigueur. In such cases it is not always easy to tell whether the person is being opposed for fundamentally violating the culture or the faith. Still, the data point is helpful.

I want to say that the conditions for heresy are at least twofold: the requisite motivations for heretical acts must be available to the church body, and the requisite motivations for issuing formal charges of heresy must be available to the church leaders. In your case both are present, but I think both of those conditions have, in general, diminished over time.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is an interesting case, but it is also complicated given the fact that racism is a cultural heresy which is enforced de rigueur. In such cases it is not always easy to tell whether the person is being opposed for fundamentally violating the culture or the faith. Still, the data point is helpful.

Well in this case it was the faith, because the Orthodox Church formally anathematized Ethnophyletism, which is the teaching that churches should be segregated on the basis of the ethnicity of their members, and that people of different nationality or ethnicity should not worship together, as heresy, after a schismatic movement in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church tried to set up an exclusively Bulgarian church in Constantinople in the 19th century, where neither Greeks nor other Orthodox Christians would be welcome.

So we excommunicated him for the heresy first and foremost, although it is also the case that he embarrassed us as well by making us look like racists, but maliciously embarassing the church won’t get you excommunicated. It might get you penanced, indeed, it probably will get you penanced, but not excommunicated for heresy.

 

[zippy2006]

Well in this case it was the faith, because the Orthodox Church formally anathematized Ethnophyletism...

This is the whole basis of my point, for without the religious doctrine there would be no possible pretext for the culture-based penalty. A clearer and more classical example would have the culture on the side of the heresy rather than the church, for in that case no clear question of motivation could arise.

For example, the clearer case would be the Orthodox bishop who sanctions his clergy for promoting a heresy in step with cultural values, rather than the Orthodox bishop who sanctions his clergy for promoting a heresy that opposes cultural values.

 

[BobRyan]

Heresy in the Bible is not about cultural values. It is about teaching error.
We don't have secular penalties for teaching false doctrine because we don't have theocracy.
In Islamic states - they may not have a legit theocracy but they are organized as one - and so heresy is punished as if it were s civil crime.

 

[zippy2006]

Heresy in the Bible is not about cultural values. It is about teaching error.
We don't have secular penalties for teaching false doctrine because we don't have theocracy.

Like I said, racism is a cultural heresy and if one teaches this error the culture will penalize them severely.

Obviously heresy is alive and well in cancel culture, but I am asking why it is no longer operative in the Christian Church. Perhaps the cultural dogmas at present mostly have to do with inclusivity, and therefore if one discriminates on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, or anything else, they will be charged with cultural heresy. Because the formal charge of religious heresy is a form of discrimination, it may run contrary to the cultural dogma of inclusivity. According to the culture one must always be inclusive, and only those who exclude can be excluded and canceled.

Another aspect is perhaps that, like the cultural dogma of moral relativism, there is also a cultural dogma of religious relativism. This is true, but I think direct pressure from the culture comes more from its dogma of inclusivity, combined with its preferential option for the victims of institutional power.

 

[AlexB23]

In the recent thread on heretics a common claim was something like, "Christian churches used to charge people with heresy and impose penalties, but they don't anymore." I think this is factually accurate, but I want to raise the question of why heresy no longer has much of a function within Christian churches. Why are formal charges of heresy "old hat," and relatively uncommon in our day and age?*

For example, from what I can find, the last two times the Catholic Church charged anyone with heresy were 2004 and 1997 (link - Reidy was eventually convicted).

(Although this thread is about charging heretics with heresy, I will still link to my thread on propositional heresy, which is related. ViaCrucis' post on heresy is also useful.)

Spoiler: Disputing the premise

Those who wish to argue that heresy is still alive and well, and is no less common today than it was in centuries past, are of course welcome to argue their position.

* A formal charge of heresy is a charge of heresy leveled by a church authority in their official capacity.

Wow, 2004 was twenty years ago, so it does seem that being charged for heresy is less common nowadays. Can I plug this question into the artificial intelligence software, as it is connected to Catholic theology documents? Yes, artificial intelligence gets a lot of flak, but it is pretty good at scraping through hundreds of pages of documents.

 

[zippy2006]

Can I plug this question into the artificial intelligence software, as it is connected to Catholic theology documents?

Haha - Sure, just so long as the thread does not become excessively focused on that sort of content.

 

[AlexB23]

Haha - Sure, just so long as the thread does not become excessively focused on that sort of content.

Thank you. I promise, I will keep your thread limited to one artificial intelligence response. Weirdly, the AI decided to use a Baptist document as a source, even though the machine has Catholic documents as well.

Prompt: Why does heresy no longer occur as often anymore as a formal charge in the modern Catholic Church?

The machine even recommended follow up questions.

 

[zippy2006]

Thank you. I promise, I will keep your thread limited to one artificial intelligence response. Weirdly, the AI decided to use a Baptist document as a source, even though the machine has Catholic documents as well.

Prompt: Why does heresy no longer occur as often anymore as a formal charge in the modern Catholic Church?

Thanks Alex, that is an interesting and useful answer. I had been considering possible changes internal to Christianity, and ChatGPT4 definitely probed those sorts of changes.

 

[AlexB23]

Thanks Alex, that is an interesting and useful answer. I had been considering possible changes internal to Christianity, and ChatGPT4 definitely probed those sorts of changes.

You are welcome. It does seem like changes to Christianity happened, as the Church is guided by scripture and tradition. Sometimes, tradition changes with the times, so that could be the reason why people are not punished for heresy as much anymore in 2024. Seems that ChatGPT on your end said similar things to Mistral 7B on my end.

Could Vatican II in the 1960s have played a role in reducing heresy charges?

 

[concretecamper]

* A formal charge of heresy is a charge of heresy leveled by a church authority in their official capacity.

One does not need a formal charge to be a heretic. Many who call themselves Christian are heretics. It doesn't take a formal pronouncement to make one a heretic.

 

[zippy2006]

Seems that ChatGPT on your end said similar things to Mistral 7B on my end.

Oh, I was just referring to your post. Maybe "GPT4ALL" does not mean ChatGPT?

Could Vatican II in the 1960s have played a role in reducing heresy charges?

It's a good theory, given the way that Council took a different tack.

 

[zippy2006]

One does not need a formal charge to be a heretic.

I don't expect that informal charges of heresy have diminished since the dawn of the internet, but I think formal charges have diminished in recent history.

Does one require authority to issue a charge of heresy? Basically, I would say yes. Informal charges of heresy can be safely ignored, as they have no standing or consequence. One can be a heretic without a formal charge, but one can never be convicted of heresy without a formal charge.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oh, I was just referring to your post. Maybe "GPT4ALL" does not mean ChatGPT?

Nope, its a system I would assume @zippy2006 is running on his own metal rather than a hosted service.

 

[concretecamper]

I don't expect that informal charges of heresy have diminished since the dawn of the internet, but I think formal charges have diminished in recent history.

Does one require authority to issue a charge of heresy? Basically, I would say yes. Informal charges of heresy can be safely ignored, as they have no standing or consequence. One can be a heretic without a formal charge, but one can never be convicted of heresy without a formal charge.

I think we agree that regardless of whether a formal charge is leveled, one who does not believe all of what His Church teaches, is a heretic.