Should Heretics Be Burned?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894679' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:14 PM'][url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm"]This Catholic Encyclopedia article[/url] discusses how theologians in the early 20th Century debated whether [i]Lamentabili Sane[/i], a document of the Holy Office, was infallible. You may be completely correct that it has now been decided that documents of the CDF cannot be infallible, but I would like to see where [i]Pastor Bonus[/i] states that. [/quote]
I think that document is posted on the Vatican site. The pope -- according to Western Catholic teaching -- cannot delegate his teaching powers to others.

[Resurrexi]

For what it's worth, here is a definition for [i]in forma specifica[/i] given by [i]Consecrated phrases: a Latin theological dictionary[/i]:

In forma specifica:
In specific form
This is a legislative term associated primarily with canon law. An ecclesial document or act or law (e.g. one issuing from some Vatican dicastery, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), that is given in forma specifica means that the pope has approved this document, act, or law, in a special way such that no further appeal to the pope directly is possible (unless the pope himself should specifically mandate such an appeal). The expression in forma specifica indicates that the pope has reviewed the document and makes it his own express approbation, thus the document acquires the canonical force of a formal papal act (cf. CIC Canons 1404 and 1405). To carry the added weight of in forma specifica the document must bear the precise formula in forma specifica approbavit; otherwise the document would be understood to be approved in forma communi (q.v.). In 1997 the Vatican “Instruction on Some Questions Regarding Collaboration of Nonordained Faithful in Priests’ Sacred Ministry” was signed by the Cardinals Prefect of eight different Vatican dicasteries (including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, etc.) and was issued in forma specifica. The text of this Vatican Instruction can be found in Origins 27 (27 November 197) 397, 399-409. For an excellent article analyzing this particular document and a fuller explanation of the relevant canonical terminology see John M. Huels, O.S.M., “Interpreting Instruction Approved in forma specifica,” Studia canonica 32 (1998) 5-46. In this dictionary see also In forma communi and Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur.



It seems to me that this is saying that if a document has been approved in forma specifica, that it has the same authority as a papal document. So the Pope would not be delegating his teaching authority, but instead making what was written by another his own.

Apotheoun, correct me if I am misunderstanding this or if this is not in line with Roman Catholic understanding of papal Magisterium.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

Resurrexi,

You are condensing two different documents into one text, i.e., Ad Tuendam Fidem, which was the document issued and approved by the pope, and the CDF doctrinal commentary, which -- in its concluding paragraphs -- contains no papal approval whatsoever. The doctrinal commentary is the work of Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone and represents their theological opinions and cannot be proposed as an official teaching of the pope or the Roman Church.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd

[Resurrexi]

As a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (though it was not approved by the Holy Father), I think it carries a more weight than the personal opinion of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

[Patrick]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1894674' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:08 PM']The Catholic church will never live this down. To this day one hears the expression, “What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?” Like Germany and the Holocaust, which will haunt them for centuries.

Of course, the church as a new scandal, pedophilia. This one isn’t over yet and it, too, will tarnish the church’s reputation for a long, long time.[/quote]

But the church doesn't condone pedophilia officially in any document do they? That's different. That's a discrepancy between doctrine and praxis. Like the 4th Crusade -- a mistake, but arguably the sack of Constantinople was never intended.

[MichaelF]

Is the execution of heretics, even by immolation**, [b]absolutely and always, everywhere[/b], wrong?

No.

Is it wrong (both morally and tactically) at this time? Yes. Very.

Likewise, the Church is quite entitled to organize the Faithful militarily to defend Christendom from pagan incursions (aka Crusade). The Holy Father could do that tomorrow morning. It just wouldn't make any sense in the current spiritual and geostrategic setting.
20 years from now, "Deus lo vult" could be quite an appropriate declaration.

Given the Church is inerrant in matters of Faith and Moral teaching, and has taught (infallibly) in the past that many unpleasant acts are not only licit, but under certain circumstances, worthy of merit, we believe so today.
It does not follow that such acts (harrying of heretics and conducting military campaigns against unbelievers) are licit [i]at all times[/i]. Context is everything.

[quote]Let those who once fought against brothers and relatives now rightfully fight against barbarians.
- Pope Urban II[/quote]


**-at the time, a standard method of secular execution for several crimes.

Edited June 18, 2009 by MichaelF

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Deffinitly not. Pro life.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' post='1894828' date='Jun 17 2009, 10:12 PM']Deffinitly not. Pro life.[/quote]

Are you saying that heretics should never have been burned at the stake?

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Well if they ever were burned at the stake. and it was officially approved by the catholic church i would have to say it is good. But that seems like not the case. I do not beleive it was ever part of the official magisterium of the Catholic church. correct me if im wrong and please quote.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' post='1894845' date='Jun 17 2009, 09:30 PM']Well if they ever were burned at the stake. and it was officially approved by the catholic church i would have to say it is good. But that seems like not the case. I do not beleive it was ever part of the official magisterium of the Catholic church. correct me if im wrong and please quote.[/quote]
Well the question isn't about burning at the stake, and the question is not directly about heretics. The question is about specific application of the death penalty. Can the death penalty legitimately be applied to heretics?
We know that the death penalty is permitted. That's beyond debate. The question is could it be moral in this case?
Today, I think probably not, but in the past when it was more common..... maybe. Maybe.
So basically what everybody else said.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' post='1894845' date='Jun 17 2009, 10:30 PM']Well if they ever were burned at the stake. and it was officially approved by the catholic church i would have to say it is good. But that seems like not the case. I do not beleive it was ever part of the official magisterium of the Catholic church. correct me if im wrong and please quote.[/quote]

In 1520, Leo X condemned the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." ([url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm"]Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine, 33[/url])

This means that it was not always wrong in every instance in the past to execute heretics. Thus, sometimes it was morally acceptable during the Middle Ages and Renaissance to execute heretics.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Resurrexi

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894830' date='Jun 17 2009, 10:13 PM']Are you saying that heretics should never have been burned at the stake?[/quote]

You are aware that St. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for being a heretic, right?

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894870' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:26 PM']In 1520, Leo X condemned the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." ([url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm"]Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine, 33[/url])

This means that it was not always wrong in every instance in the past to execute heretics. Thus, sometimes it was morally acceptable during the Middle Ages and Renaissance to execute heretics.[/quote]

This is an ethics question, one which I want more of an answer than just that some Popes and the Church accepted it, but a personal stance from your own perspective on this issue.

DO you personally think it was right for heretics, who breathed, lived and was given life by God to walk tis planet, to be then taken out of life for the act of disagreeing with the Church? Is it moral to kill in the name of God when there is no physical threat of harm and the heresy is only and ideology?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Vasilius Konstantinos' post='1894897' date='Jun 17 2009, 11:06 PM']This is an ethics question, one which I want more of an answer than just that some Popes and the Church accepted it, but a personal stance from your own perspective on this issue.

DO you personally think it was right for heretics, who breathed, lived and was given life by God to walk tis planet, to be then taken out of life for the act of disagreeing with the Church? Is it moral to kill in the name of God when there is no physical threat of harm and the heresy is only and ideology?[/quote]

Spread of heresy can be a greater threat than most physical ones. Mass spread of heresy can lead to mass damnation of souls to hell forever.

Before it's asked of me, I personally agree with the Popes and Church on this matter.

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1894902' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:10 AM']Spread of heresy can be a greater threat than most physical ones. Mass spread of heresy can lead to mass damnation of souls to hell forever.

Before it's asked of me, I personally agree with the Popes and Church on this matter.[/quote]

So you justify death "out of mercy for their souls"? I know it sounds cruel but I am trying to understand this, as the Orthodox approach to heresies is non-violent, as far as I know and this was an issue in dialogue with Rome in the last centuries, the violence Rome committed in the past. So please do not take anything personal out of these questions.

Are there any texts on this subject i could read which gives more of a physical expalanation than Papal decrees, something a bit laid out for laity?