Burning Heretics At The Stake In 2008

[socalscout]

This is stemming from the Thomas More thread and I can see the logic of removing someone involved in the spiritual killings of others but can there be justification to burn someone at the stake ever especially in 2008?

Really, I'm not joking. If a small country in South America became a "Catholic State" much like many Muslim countries and started the old practice of trying and burning heretics at the stake would you be ok with it? Would the Holy See be ok with it? Would it be justifiable if all conditions were met?

Lets say it took them 10 years to try to persuade and dissuade the person from heresy and that person truly is guilty of leading people astray, but nothing could be resolved so they burned them at the stake.

Would you be ok with it? Would the Holy Father be ok with it? Is it justifiable?

I'm not trying to catch my fellow Catholics into admitting something that I beleive to be wrong but I am a bit surprised at the defense of it and would really like to know why.

[Didacus]

ALthough I would not be able to bring myself to taking part in it, I believe an argument can be made for abortionists.

[socalscout]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1731306' date='Dec 18 2008, 11:40 AM']ALthough I would not be able to bring myself to taking part in it, I believe an argument can be made for abortionists.[/quote]

I can see the logic of blowing up abortion clinics to stop the killing of innocent babies but logic is not necesarliy the highest moral solution but I do not want to detract from the subject of this thread.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1731306' date='Dec 18 2008, 10:40 AM']ALthough I would not be able to bring myself to taking part in it, I believe an argument can be made for abortionists.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
the way winchester is arguing it, it would first depend on if an abortionist is a formal heretic.

[thessalonian]

We also have to consider in this discussion that at the time the people were in extreme ignorance and couldn't read. The Church needed to defend them and the faith against those who were of learning but used it to lead people astray. Today those who can read are much more able to defend themselves.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1731303' date='Dec 18 2008, 01:28 PM']This is stemming from the Thomas More thread and I can see the logic of removing someone involved in the spiritual killings of others but can there be justification to burn someone at the stake ever especially in 2008?

Really, I'm not joking. If a small country in South America became a "Catholic State" much like many Muslim countries and started the old practice of trying and burning heretics at the stake would you be ok with it? Would the Holy See be ok with it? Would it be justifiable if all conditions were met?

Lets say it took them 10 years to try to persuade and dissuade the person from heresy and that person truly is guilty of leading people astray, but nothing could be resolved so they burned them at the stake.

Would you be ok with it? Would the Holy Father be ok with it? Is it justifiable?

I'm not trying to catch my fellow Catholics into admitting something that I beleive to be wrong but I am a bit surprised at the defense of it and would really like to know why.[/quote]

Answering in the order you asked the questions: No, no, no, no, no, no, aaaand no!

St. Thomas More lived in a different time, before there was much of a concept of religious freedom or any other civil rights, when your right to live in a kingdom depended on your loyalty to the king and his religion. Also, More had heretics burned as a function of the state in his role as chancellor, not as a function of the Church. It's a fine line to draw, but once again, this is why the Pilgrims and other settlers fled Europe. As I understand it, those who are defending the practice are defending it from More's point of view in the time he lived. It's not something you can take from the 16th century and apply to the 21st.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1731316' date='Dec 18 2008, 01:50 PM']+J.M.J.+
the way winchester is arguing it, it would first depend on if an abortionist is a formal heretic.[/quote]

Good point.

[CatherineM]

I doubt the Vatican would support it. They spend a lot of time trying to apologize/explain away things like the inquisition.

[Ziggamafu]

[b]No.[/b] The damage and threat of heretics [u]today can be safely contained[/u] thanks to technological and civil advancements. Just as can be said, in most cases, for capital punishment for murder or physical crimes against humanity.

If the advancements of today were [i]removed[/i]? If the damage and threat of heretics could [i]not [/i]be safely contained? If we were suddenly plunged into some sort of post-apocalyptic Dark Ages? Then the answer would likely be yes.

[Guest]

The heretics that were burned, what part did they not agree with the church on ? What was some of the stuff they were saying that led to them being killed ?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

I predict this will either become a very fun, active thread with lively debate and lengthy diatrabes in the future from my perspective.

Or it'll probably be locked due to all I have mentioned above.

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1731332' date='Dec 18 2008, 02:11 PM']Answering in the order you asked the questions: No, no, no, no, no, no, aaaand no!

St. Thomas More lived in a different time, before there was much of a concept of religious freedom or any other civil rights, when your right to live in a kingdom depended on your loyalty to the king and his religion. Also, More had heretics burned as a function of the state in his role as chancellor, not as a function of the Church. It's a fine line to draw, but once again, this is why the Pilgrims and other settlers fled Europe. As I understand it, those who are defending the practice are defending it from More's point of view in the time he lived. It's not something you can take from the 16th century and apply to the 21st.[/quote]

But it was not just More. Aquinas and cannon law also sanctioned the practice.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1731405' date='Dec 18 2008, 04:24 PM'][b]No.[/b] The damage and threat of heretics [u]today can be safely contained[/u] thanks to technological and civil advancements. Just as can be said, in most cases, for capital punishment for murder or physical crimes against humanity.

If the advancements of today were [i]removed[/i]? If the damage and threat of heretics could [i]not [/i]be safely contained? If we were suddenly plunged into some sort of post-apocalyptic Dark Ages? Then the answer would likely be yes.[/quote]

What does that mean, "safely contained"?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

The heretics will have recanted and reuinifed with the Chruch before any damage of Schismatic proportions can be caused.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1731491' date='Dec 18 2008, 06:36 PM']The heretics will have recanted and reuinifed with the Chruch before any damage of Schismatic proportions can be caused.[/quote]


Then I don't understand what he was claiming.