HisChildForever Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 Why did the Catholic Church burn dissenters at the stake? Instead of providing guidance, counseling, and mercy? Sometimes just listening and sympathizing with a dissenter, even if we ultimately disagree, can be healing for that person. Why such violence? Has the Church ever tried to justify it in modern times, or has this practice been vilified? Could you imagine setting people on fire today because they leave Catholicism? It's mind boggling to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 I'll answer quickly, and see if anyone will provide a longer answer. First, most people would have been given an opportunity to renounce their heretical beliefs. Those who did not were considered obstinate in their heresy. Therefore, what other recourse (at least in the mindset of the time) was there? There were those who did repent of their heresy, and while death sentences were handed down, they could be commuted to other penances. Also, in many cases the state was also involved, and this will lead to a second point. Inquisition trials could also be bound up in trials for other crimes (insurrection, adultery, sodomy, etc). Second, social cohesion is super important. Heresy is typically a public crime (yes, there is private heresy, but how would people find out about it if you kept it to yourself), and therefore necessitates a public atonement. Heresy had the capability to upset both the social peace of a populace but also the entire social structure and relation. Thus the concern and involvement of the state. Its involvement in these cases and trials cannot be underestimated. If guilty of crime and sentenced to death, it was considered the penance which one worthily and mercifully deserved - as it had the capability to help heal the social wound (and act as a warning to others), and when penitently accepted, would also serve as an assurance that one could avoid hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share Posted November 27, 2015 (edited) Thank you for your thoughtful response. It does raise a few more questions on my end however. While a person speaking publicly against the Church would cause social unrest, surely the individual could simply be ostracized from the community? I just think of all the Catholics today in both the public and private spheres who act in contrary to the Church and I can't fathom how there was once a time when the Church would dole out the death penalty on these people. We were granted Free Will, so the authorities at the time knew that God would not want such individuals forced to love Him, that they do have the choice. While the Old Testment shows us a God quick to act in justice, the New shows us His merciful and tender side. Jesus Himself pressed upon His disciples to forgive seven times seventy-seven times. To remove the beam in our eye before plucking the splinter from a fellow sinner's. Why couldn't a more compassionate approach be made? Which leads me to this...I have a hard time understanding how anyone about to be burned alive would "penitently accept" their fate. If anything it would make them more obstinate against the Church. In my opinion, of course. And the fact that Christians would gather and watch their fellows roast. It's horrifying. Just as the Christians who were ripped apart by lions for sport was horrifying. Edited November 27, 2015 by HisChildForever Grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 2 hours ago, HisChildForever said: Why did the Catholic Church burn dissenters at the stake? Instead of providing guidance, counseling, and mercy? Sometimes just listening and sympathizing with a dissenter, even if we ultimately disagree, can be healing for that person. Why such violence? Has the Church ever tried to justify it in modern times, or has this practice been vilified? Could you imagine setting people on fire today because they leave Catholicism? It's mind boggling to me. The Church did not burn people at the stake. They ran trials in which a person was convicted of heresy and then turned over to the state for punishment. Heresy (against whatever religion was the Kings) was political treason and a crime against the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 27, 2015 Share Posted November 27, 2015 17 minutes ago, HisChildForever said: While the Old Testment shows us a God quick to act in justice, the New shows us His merciful and tender side. Jesus Himself pressed upon His disciples to forgive seven times seventy-seven times. Go back through the Old Testament and look closely for this "quick to act in justice" God that you speak of. I think you'll find He Himself forgave seven times seventy-seven times even before the coming of Christ. Only then would He punish—and then He would forgive again. He has always been merciful and tender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 59 minutes ago, HisChildForever said: Which leads me to this...I have a hard time understanding how anyone about to be burned alive would "penitently accept" their fate. If anything it would make them more obstinate against the Church. In my opinion, of course. And the fact that Christians would gather and watch their fellows roast. It's horrifying. Just as the Christians who were ripped apart by lions for sport was horrifying. I'll have to think about your other questions: but certainly, priests would always be present to the condemned and urge them to repent. He have this practice into more 'modern' times with those on death row (Fr. Joseph Caffaso was known as the saint of the gallows), I've read of other stories from just a couple years ago of confessors urging the condemned to offer their death in penance. In the highly religious environment of the the period, why might not people, at least some, desire to follow this advice? Further, as to the actual mechanics of execution - while there were many who were killed by the flame themselves, executioners were known to garrot or otherwise quickly kill the condemned without the knowledge of the crowd in order to make death quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said: The Church did not burn people at the stake. They ran trials in which a person was convicted of heresy and then turned over to the state for punishment. Heresy (against whatever religion was the Kings) was political treason and a crime against the state. I was going to make that same point. Ironic, the way it sounds just like what happened to Christ, the Sanhedrin and Pilate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted November 28, 2015 Author Share Posted November 28, 2015 1 hour ago, Gabriela said: Go back through the Old Testament and look closely for this "quick to act in justice" God that you speak of. I think you'll find He Himself forgave seven times seventy-seven times even before the coming of Christ. Only then would He punish—and then He would forgive again. He has always been merciful and tender. I never said He wasn't always merciful and tender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 3 hours ago, HisChildForever said: We were granted Free Will, so the authorities at the time knew that God would not want such individuals forced to love Him, that they do have the choice. While the Old Testment shows us a God quick to act in justice, the New shows us His merciful and tender side. Jesus Himself pressed upon His disciples to forgive seven times seventy-seven times. To remove the beam in our eye before plucking the splinter from a fellow sinner's. Why couldn't a more compassionate approach be made? I think some saw it as a form of compassion to kill the body of the person before that person killed their soul or the souls of others that would come into contact with them. Free will is the ability to do what you ought, not the ability to do what you wan't. Error has no rights, so refusing to give up your heresy was not seen as a right a person would have had under free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Different times, different mindset. God was (is) still moving people along. There were some vile methods used in that time in general, and in some places there are still some used. It's only in recent times that people are slowing getting, and research is showing, that punishment doesn't really bring about good ends (healing or true transformation). In terms of burning - it had important significance. Firstly, the fire was seen as a punishment and a purification. But the destruction of the body scared many with the belief that the body shouldn't be burned or destroyed (as it may hinder being ever able to enter the afterlife at the resurrection). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 WWJD? Obviously burn people at the stake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 8 hours ago, HisChildForever said: Why did the Catholic Church burn dissenters at the stake? Instead of providing guidance, counseling, and mercy? Sometimes just listening and sympathizing with a dissenter, even if we ultimately disagree, can be healing for that person. Why such violence? Has the Church ever tried to justify it in modern times, or has this practice been vilified? Could you imagine setting people on fire today because they leave Catholicism? It's mind boggling to me. Simple answer: The Church never burned anyone at the stake. Governments did in order to keep cultural peace. The Church generally didn't object, of course, but it is inaccurate to say that the Church did this. From what my mind recalls from the months-long lesson I got in Church history, the Church never personally tortured or killed anyone. It was always governments that did that sort of thing. The worst we can be blamed for is recognizing heretics and then obeying the law by notifying government officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows: [...] 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 35 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. Citation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 5 minutes ago, truthfinder said: Citation? Thirty third error condemned by Exsurge Domine, 1520. Leo X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now