Heretics

[noncatholicname]

Now that you've got the definitions right, now what?

[JP2Iloveyou]

I'm going to stick with my definitions. I received that Bible at a retreat in Lincoln, NE. If it is good enough for Bishop Bruskewitz, then it's good enough for me. Bishop Bruskewizt is certainly no liberal and he is certainly in line with the Church.

I'm going to repost my initial premises and I would appreciate someone on the other side to do the same. Please don't respond to these, just post your own. Once we are on the same page and we know where everyone is at, it will make for a much better debate.

[quote]1. I think that we have an obligation to defend the faith, even to the point of death if necessary. With that, I agree with you.
2. I do not think the moral law allows us to go around killing arbitrarily anyone who does not posess and proclaim the Catholic faith.
3. I maintain the definitions I used in the heretics thread. They were from the dictionary of The New American Bible. It has a Nihil Obstat from Michael F. Gutgsell, J.C.D. and Valentine J. Peter, J.C.D. The Imprimatur is from Archbishop Daniel E. Sheehan, D.D., J.C.D, Archbishop of Omaha.
4. I think that the writings of Pope John Paul II clearly say that people have the right and should have the freedom to worship as they choose and to form their conscience, always keeping in mind that EVERYONE has the moral obligation to form their conscience, as best they can, to the truth.[/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

1 It is morally permissable to make war on Infidels and Heretics... Furthermore it is the Tradition of the Church that there are times when this action becomes morally obligatiory.


2. Public Formal Heresy is an offense for which it is morally permissable to execute-- it may not always be the wisest choice but it is a morally permissable choice.

3. The writings of the Church clearly say that no one has a Right to do anything that is wrong, worshiping in non Catholic religions is clearly wrong and so one cannot have the " Right " to do it.


4 I would accept the definition of heresy from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. [color=red][u][i][b]The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. [/b][/i][/u][/color]The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".


Furthermore anyone formally declared a Heretic by the Church ( such as in council) would of course qualify.


5 It is improper to question tenets 1 and 2 as both are fundemental traditions of the Church.

[popestpiusx]

My position:
I. I think that we have an obligation to defend the faith, even to the point of death if necessary.

II. I do not think the moral law allows us to go around killing arbitrarily anyone who does not posess and proclaim the Catholic faith.

III. I maintain the definitions used by St. Thomas Aquinas and taught by the Catholic Church:

Aquin.: ST SS Q[11] A[2] R.O. 3 Para. 1/1

Reply OBJ 3: As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church.

Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; [b]although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. [/b]


IV. I believe (because the Catholic Church teaches) that public persistent heretics can be executed. No one has a right to spread error, as error has no rights.

Again from Aquinas:

ST SS Q[11] A[3] Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. [b]On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.[/b] For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. [b]Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. [/b]

And again:

Aquin.: ST SS Q[11] A[3] Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore [b]delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.[/b] For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Edited November 23, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Don John of Austria]

Well JP2 were waiting.....

[JP2Iloveyou]

Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I have been very busy and I wanted to make sure I provided a well-reasoned answer, not some tongue-in-cheek comment.

Don John of Austria, I don't disagree with any of your post. I accept your definition of heresy and I agree with your principles. One thing though, in your first principle, when you say that you think it is OK to make war on heretics, I assume you mean formal heretics here, not simply material heretics who may not know the error of their ways?

popestpiusx, I also agree with what you posted. I think the distinction must be made that war needs to only be waged when those who do not share our faith try and impede the Church. Aquinas says this:

[quote]I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.

On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.
[/quote]

SS Question 10 Number 8

It's amazing isn't it? The faithful usually agree on most doctrinal things, you just have to calm down and get people to explain what their positions really are. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think we all agree.

We all believe that we as Catholics must do whatever it takes in order to evangelize our separated brethren. Pope John Paul II has been quite clear on this point. We also seem to agree that we can't just go around killing whoever we dang well please simply because they aren't Catholic. We also agree, however, that because our faith is so important, we have the right, one might even say the duty, to defend the faith, through war if necessary. However, we must always be careful to distinguish between unbelievers who were born into an unbelief and may be ignorant to the truth and unbelievers who chose heresy of their own volition knowing what the truth is.

God Bless

[Don John of Austria]

JPII -- I think we agrree on those points with one clarification( I don't actually think you will disagree with this, I just want to clarify) I would agree with this statement[quote]However, we must always be careful to distinguish between unbelievers who were born into an unbelief and may be ignorant to the truth and unbelievers who chose heresy of their own volition knowing what the truth is.
[/quote]
ecxepting that it doesn't matter the state of their heresy( Formal or material) if they are actually assualting the Church the right to wage war upon them is not abrogated in anyway. As they have attacked the Church they have forfieted the protections that their birth might have given them-- the have moved from Seperated Brethren to Enemies of the Church. Of course all the nesccessities of Just Warfare always apply.

[Pio Nono]

Don John, no argument from me on that point.

[JP2Iloveyou]

My bad. Pio Nono and I live in the same building and often share computers. I forgot to log him out again.

[Guest]

what ever happen'd to turning the other cheek ?
your tounge being your sword ?
thou shall not kill ?
killing people who dont proclaim the catholic faith
that sounds really "christian"

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='Nov 25 2004, 07:40 PM'] what ever happen'd to turning the other cheek ?
your tounge being your sword ?
thou shall not kill ?
killing people who dont proclaim the catholic faith
that sounds really "christian" [/quote]
The Death Penalty is Catholic...

Genesis ix. 6: Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.

Catholic Encyclopedia: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm[/url]

Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Fifth Commandment

The Prohibitory Part of this Commandment

Exceptions:

The Killing Of Animals
With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for if God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, "Thou shalt not kill," we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.


Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.


Killing In A Just War
In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.


Killing By Accident
Again, death caused, not by intent or design, but by accident, is not murder. He that killeth his neighbour ignorantly, says the book of Deuteronomy, and who is proved to have had no hatred against him yesterday and the day before, but to have gone with him to the wood to hew wood, and in cutting down the tree the axe slipt out of his hand, and the iron slipping from the handle struck his friend and killed him, shall live. Such accidental deaths, because inflicted without intent or design, involve no guilt whatever, and this is confirmed by the words of St. Augustine: God forbid that what we do for a good and lawful end shall be imputed to us, if, contrary to our intention, evil thereby befall any one.

There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful. The other case is when death is caused by negligence, carelessness or want of due precaution.


Killing In Self­Defence
If a man kill another in self­defence, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this Commandment.