Should Heretics Be Burned?

[StColette]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1895217' date='Jun 18 2009, 11:31 AM']Person A would go to hell if he followed and believed in the heresies of Person B and did not repent before death.[/quote]

Not necessarily, unless Person A knew that the heresy was against Church teaching and was content in following the heresy when the Church had instructed him otherwise, then yes. Many of the regular "joes" who fell victim to believing and following certain heresies were not aware of the correct teaching of the Church. Remember, back in those days the ordinary person did not have the resources that we have at our disposal. Communication and instruction in the faith, especially in remote areas, was quite difficult.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1895078' date='Jun 18 2009, 02:43 AM']Nihil, I've read and reread your post several times now, and I still can't figure out what you're referring to by "silliness" and the phrase "pop culture propaganda". Could you be a bit more specific? I'm trying to figure out if I've offended you (sorry, if I have) and you're not talking to me anymore.[/quote]
I'm sorry. That wasn't the impression I was trying to give at all. I wasn't referring to you with that post.
I was referring to certain people who seem completely shocked that the death penalty is considered a legitimate possibility by the Church.

I've read most of your posts on PM so far and I have enormous respect for you, so don't even worry.

[Gregorius]

[quote name='StColette' post='1895228' date='Jun 18 2009, 10:44 AM']Not necessarily, unless Person A knew that the heresy was against Church teaching and was content in following the heresy when the Church had instructed him otherwise, then yes. Many of the regular "joes" who fell victim to believing and following certain heresies were not aware of the correct teaching of the Church. Remember, back in those days the ordinary person did not have the resources that we have at our disposal. Communication and instruction in the faith, especially in remote areas, was quite difficult.[/quote]
If I am reading this right, than this is a good articulation of why it would be inappropriate to burn heretics today. As truth is objective, truth then (i.e. Middle Ages) is the same as truth today(i.e. 2009). The Holy Spirit as Truth itself would never allow people to fall into error if they desire the truth. Thus, the Holy Spirit does not condone the spread of heresy-that is, in the position of the church, a denial of truth. The Holy Spirit guides the church to spread truth and correct error, even if some of its members are less than perfect. To say the Holy Spirit would desire the spread of heresy is an erroneous idea. So the church must always and uncompromisingly speak the truth and stop the spread of heresy.
How does the church do that? It asks you to stop, first of all. Believe it or not the Church is not like a mafia family that immediately resorts to violence(though we are based out of Italy!). If a heretic does not repent, we ask again. Still nothing, again. Still nothing?, then we tell them. Then we warn them. Then we give them one final warning. Then we start the process of excommunication, which, funny enough, starts with a warning and a request to cease and desist. and another warning. And another. Only then, if the heretic refuses to recant, does the Church excommunicate, and even then, admission back to the sacraments is as simple as obeying the Church by retracting the erroneous belief and stating the truth.

As noted earlier, the Church in most cases does not have the power to put people to death. The state powers do that. As the church is so large, the Pope does not have the time or energy to deal with all local affairs. Nor does he need to. That's why there are local bishops to solve the problem. It is the local bishop's responsibility to stop heresy. Some bishops could choose to exile a heretic, as was common in the early church. Others choose to allow the local authorities to execute them. Sometimes the local bishop [u]was[/u] the authority. Regardless of whether death for the heretic was a good choice or not, This was a matter in which the local ordinary had authority. And the bishop should be led by the Holy Spirit. To say that the bishops act against the Holy Spirit when acting in good conscious is, simply, wrong. God will judge whether or not these individual bishops acted in good conscience when condemning heretics.

Now to my point. We've established the Church could allow the burning of heretics, but is it the right thing to do? We all know that God says "You shall not kill". Period. So it seems that burning is definitely not something you should do outright. What are the alternatives? Demanding him/her to stop? We've been doing that. They are just ignoring us. Excommunicate? I don't think they care. Exile? That would be spreading heresy, and that would put them out of your authority? Imprison them? Maybe, that just might work. Torture? That's not humane, though after a while you can get them to do what you want. So you have imprisonment and death. Death is sure to silence the heretic, but it is not right. Imprisonment does not change the heretic's beliefs. Or it might. So imagine you are a bishop in the Middle Ages. You have a heretic cult growing in a small town, and this town happens to have a trade route running through it, so that heresy could have the potential of spreading.As you are charged with the shepherding of souls, you have a responsibility of stopping the heresy. Prison systems and conditions are poor to non-existent, and besides that probably won't stop the erroneous ideas. On the other hand, you could torture/kill them, but that would endanger [u]their[/u] souls and could make you guilty of sin as well. You don't want to kill them, but you don't want your flock to be turned from Christ either. What do you do? What do you do? You are in what we in the 21st century call a Catch-22.
What do you do? Killing them/threatening to kill them to could silence them and stop the ideas. It could convert them back at the last minute.And it is not your intention to kill them in malice. You at least could confess this sin afterward... Well, the point is, its a tough call, an evil, a lesser evil, but evil nonetheless. God only knows who does/does not have blood on their hands. Now flip to the modern age. Pretending you have the same authority as the medieval bishop what would you do? Many of the people around you never knew the Church's position on various issues, so their guilt may not be so severe. Prisons have better hygiene, and are shown to be more effective in conversion away from a criminal lifestyle. Most importantly, you have just as much the ability to spread the truth as they do with their lies. Now looking at all of reality, you obviously don't have the authority to punish heretics, but with more effective methods of evangelizing, you no longer have to resort to such methods. Same with the death penalty. A lesser evil if used to stop violence, but now an evil that can be avoided. The choice to kill still exists as a legitimate option if you have to, but now the Church says you don't have to choose those options, and so you shouldn't.

I may have confused some people out there, including myself . Feel free to ask me if you need clarification.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1894970' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:55 AM']And Christianity is a peaceful, non-violent religion? Haha. What a joke.[/quote]

When possible, it is.

When not....

Well, the Turks weren't stopped at Lepanto and Vienna by pacifism.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Gregoriana of Nyssa' post='1895024' date='Jun 18 2009, 01:57 AM']Um....

What about "thou shalt not kill"[/quote]

You are aware that the correct translation is "Thou shalt not [u]commit murder[/u], yes?

Murder is unlawful killing. I've killed (directly and indirectly*) quite a lot of people, as an Officer in the US Army.
None of that was murder, as I was carrying out legitimate orders from a properly-constituted authority, in the pursuit of a just cause (stability and a livable environment for both Americans and Iraqis/Afghanis), and the people who died were in the business of murdering people in their beds and turning basements into torture chambers.


*-as an Officer, I am at all times responsible for everything my Soldiers do (and don't do).

Edited June 18, 2009 by MichaelF

[MichaelF]

[quote name='PeteWaldo' post='1895135' date='Jun 18 2009, 08:40 AM']Indeed it would be Kitty, if that were what being a Christian is about.

Mark 12:30 [color="#000080"]And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. 31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, [b]Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [/b]There is none other commandment greater than these.[/color]

Matthew 5:44 [color="#000080"]But I say unto you, [b]love your enemies[/b], bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;[/color]

John 13:35 [color="#000080"][b]By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.[/b][/color][/quote]

Luke 22:36 [color="#FF0000"]"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
[/color]

Matthew 10:34 [color="#FF0000"]"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." [/color]

Missed those verses, did we?

Edited June 18, 2009 by MichaelF

[Kitty]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895138' date='Jun 18 2009, 08:52 AM']If, during the Middle Ages when prisons weren't as great as they are now, a violent band of murderders who could not be contained in a prison went all through the country murdering citizens daily, do you think it would contrary to Christian charity for the State to execute such men?[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything?

Burning heretics in the Middle Ages was wrong. Burning heretics today would be wrong. Period.

[Brother Adam]

Should heretics be burned for their heresy?


Only if they weigh as much as a duck.

[StColette]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1895366' date='Jun 18 2009, 04:03 PM']What does that have to do with anything?

Burning heretics in the Middle Ages was wrong. Burning heretics today would be wrong. Period.[/quote]

His point is very valid. Many heretics were very obstinate in their heresy and would not recant what they had been teaching. You could excommunicate them, and it still didn't matter. They would still continue to teach errors throughout the area. Your only other choices were to imprison them or to put them to death. Imprisonment was not an option in many areas, because they did not have prison facility of any kind. So to protect the faithful from error they would be put to death. The same goes for other criminals of that time period. Many thieves and lesser criminals than murders were put to death because they did not have the facilities to hold them. The option were to either let them go free to steal, etc. even more or put them to death. Many of them were executed. Look at those who were crucified with Christ. Both were merely thieves and they were being crucified. Today, we are not faced with the challenges of lack of prison facilities that were faced in the Middle Ages. We also have better communication skills to spread the correct teachings of the Church. Back then people took the word of their priest as the word of the Church and sometimes those priests were teaching their people errors and the people were completely unaware.

[Dan]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1895370' date='Jun 18 2009, 04:10 PM']Should heretics be burned for their heresy?


Only if they weigh as much as a duck.[/quote]

Since burning was a middle ages sort of thing, we need to update it a bit.

Nuke 'em until they glow then shot 'em in the dark.

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1895370' date='Jun 18 2009, 03:10 PM']Should heretics be burned for their heresy?


Only if they weigh as much as a duck.[/quote]

[Gregoriana of Nyssa]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1895361' date='Jun 18 2009, 02:51 PM']You are aware that the correct translation is "Thou shalt not [u]commit murder[/u], yes?

Murder is unlawful killing. I've killed (directly and indirectly*) quite a lot of people, as an Officer in the US Army.
None of that was murder, as I was carrying out legitimate orders from a properly-constituted authority, in the pursuit of a just cause (stability and a livable environment for both Americans and Iraqis/Afghanis), and the people who died were in the business of murdering people in their beds and turning basements into torture chambers.


*-as an Officer, I am at all times responsible for everything my Soldiers do (and don't do).[/quote]

Yes, I am quite aware of it. I'm not talking about killing in defense of one's country; I'm talking about putting people to death because of their beliefs.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Gregoriana of Nyssa' post='1895395' date='Jun 18 2009, 04:52 PM']Yes, I am quite aware of it. I'm not talking about killing in defense of one's country; I'm talking about putting people to death because of their beliefs.[/quote]

Their "beliefs" weren't at question.

Their spreading of lies and attempts to disrupt the social order are what brought down the Church and State on them.

Take the Reformation, for instance. The Protestant Heresy got a foothold, and the resulting conflict (the Thirty Years War) depopulated Central Germany, to the point where it's used in nuclear warfare studies. It also fractured the Western Church and caused the collapse of Christendom as an operating entity.
Had it been dealt with in the same manner as the Cathars or Iconoclasts, a few million people could have lived.

Heretics (unrepentant ones) were executed, by the State, because they got people killed (not to mention Damned). We executed the Rosenbergs for similar reasons.

Edited June 18, 2009 by MichaelF

[Patrick]

I appreciate very much the distinction we have in the Byzantine East: that the State has care of its members' bodies, and the Church has care of their souls. War has been always lamented by Orthodox, even if deemed necessary by some. And our soldiers have found great healing in the repentance for killing someone even in the course of your duties.

Jesus, while bring conflict and tension by the nature of His message, did not in fact kill those not with right belief, but rather died Himself and turned the other cheek, telling his apostles also to preach to all nations. And, lo, the apostles died too! Martyrs martyrs and more martyrs, executed. Why? Because unbelieving people put them to death, and not the other way around. To be on the wrong side of that sword is to miss the ENTIRE point.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Patrick

[Apotheoun]

Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.

It is true that an accurate historical judgment cannot prescind from careful study of the cultural conditioning of the times, as a result of which many people may have held in good faith that an authentic witness to the truth could include suppressing the opinions of others or at least paying no attention to them. Many factors frequently converged to create assumptions which justified intolerance and fostered an emotional climate from which only great spirits, truly free and filled with God, were in some way able to break free. Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power".

[Pope John Paul II, [i]Tertio Millenio Adveniente[/i], no. 35]