The death penalty of Heretics

[Meepy]

You can see by this OP, that this will be quite controversial. But with regards to the death penalty of heretics, I have been pondering about it for a while now. It was mostly after I had read an excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas that stated:

"With regard to heretics, two arguments must be observed: one concerning themselves, the other from the aspect of the Church. On their own side, there is the sin whereby they deserve to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much more serious matter to corrupt the faith which gives life to the soul than to counterfeit that which supports temporal life. Wherefore, if counterfeiters and other evil-doers are immediately condemned to death by the secular authorities, there is much more reason for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, not only to be excommunicated but even put to death. 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 warning", as the Apostle directs (Titus 3:10). After that, if he is still 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, she delivers him over to the secular tribunal, thereby to be exterminated from the world by death."

St. Thomas Aquinas


"That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false." -Pope Leo X


"I entirely detest heretics, and as Magistrate do promise assiduously to perform my duty in investigating them. Heresy is a kind of treason, and if a heretic persisteth in his false belief, he may be handed over to be burned."

-St. Thomas More

"Even if my own father were a heretic, I would gather the wood to burn him at the stake."

-Pope Paul IV


I have read some articles, that states that while the Church condemns unjust murder, the crime of heresy is so bad that in some cases it(death penalty) can be justified. Lest any more souls fall to the snares of a heretic. And in this view the death penalty of a obstinate heretic would be seen as saving hundreds if not thousands of souls from the snares of the person.

I know people immediately will look at this issue with anger and awe. As the murdering of people always inflicts these feelings. But I think Thomas Aquinas was looking at it in a way of the prevention of the eternal damnation of others, in which nothing more could be worse than to cause someone the 'second death'. I remember in one writing, it stated that by causing the first death in a heretic, they save the 'second death' of hundreds of others.

How do others reconcile it? Pope Leo X condemns the view that it is against the spirit of the Church to say the burning of heretics is bad. If you yourself knew a heretic who would cause the damnation of hundreds of souls would his life be worth saving? Lets not try to look at this solely in 21st century humanist principles, but within the principles of the law in the middle ages.

Also, can we keep our emotions under guard? This OP is more a matter of personal conscience and trying to understand documents that might seem contradictory, and fidelity to the faith. Are there any documents from the Church that repudiated the issues of death penalty of heretics later on?

 

[Meepy]

so no views on the issue?

 

[JourneyToPeace]

My understanding, incomplete as it is, is that since Aquinas' time, Catholic theology has been refined and discussed in many different ways. The Catechism we have now is a reflection of that refinement, as is the entire field of moral theology. When punishment for crimes used to fall to the Church itself in much earlier times, now, the Church seems to allow physical punishment to fall exclusively to the State whereas the Church takes care of the 'spiritual punishment'. Hence, if someone commits a crime -- they can technically be executed. If someone commits heresy against the faith, that falls into the Church's realm of dealing with the spirituality side of things only, so that individually could technically be excommunicated.... rather than executed.

I don't know exactly when the change or shift in thinking occurred, between the 13th century and now. Knowing what we do about human nature, the human mind, and seeing the theology we've developed in regards to respecting life.... I reckon it is a very good thing the thinking did change.

See? I avoided getting all emotional here

 

[Meepy]

My understanding, incomplete as it is, is that since Aquinas' time, Catholic theology has been refined and discussed in many different ways. The Catechism we have now is a reflection of that refinement, as is the entire field of moral theology. When punishment for crimes used to fall to the Church itself in much earlier times, now, the Church seems to allow physical punishment to fall exclusively to the State whereas the Church takes care of the 'spiritual punishment'. Hence, if someone commits a crime -- they can technically be executed. If someone commits heresy against the faith, that falls into the Church's realm of dealing with the spirituality side of things only, so that individually could technically be excommunicated.... rather than executed.

I don't know exactly when the change or shift in thinking occurred, between the 13th century and now. Knowing what we do about human nature, the human mind, and seeing the theology we've developed in regards to respecting life.... I reckon it is a very good thing the thinking did change.

See? I avoided getting all emotional here

yea that's what I was thinking. I think one interesting perspective is through the eyes of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine who himself was an inquisitor. His writings still have great influence of today too since he wrote many good books. It seems some who were put to death were guilty of a large number of other offenses, such as things like rioting, Church destruction, and theft. I think he writes somewhere that no one is ever executed solely for heresy, but that it always involves other grave crimes that go unknown in the newspapers. And thus it is made to look like the person was executed solely for heresy when in reality they had a large portfolio of other crimes that they had committed. Apparently earlier on the reformation tended to influence areas that had higher crime rates and poverty. And many groups, like the Huguenots, raped and maimed women and started dangerous riots along their journeys during their iconoclastic frenzies.

 

[BAFRIEND]

how does one go about applying to be on one of these secular tribunals acquinas talks about ?

i mean, the only that is going to work would be if the state was controled by or closely associated to the Church like spain and france were in the middle ages

wasn't tyndale tricked into catholic terrotory ?

 

[JourneyToPeace]

yea that's what I was thinking. I think one interesting perspective is through the eyes of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine who himself was an inquisitor. His writings still have great influence of today too since he wrote many good books. It seems some who were put to death were guilty of a large number of other offenses, such as things like rioting, Church destruction, and theft. I think he writes somewhere that no one is ever executed solely for heresy, but that it always involves other grave crimes that go unknown in the newspapers. And thus it is made to look like the person was executed solely for heresy when in reality they had a large portfolio of other crimes that they had committed. Apparently earlier on the reformation tended to influence areas that had higher crime rates and poverty. And many groups, like the Huguenots, raped and maimed women and started dangerous riots along their journeys during their iconoclastic frenzies.

Well, I am going to say something that'll be at least as controversial as the OP itself... which is this:

I think that too often, we judge the past by modern standards. We ALL look at the time we live in, and the time others USED to live in, through different lenses depending on who we are, what we know, where we're from, etc etc. And that's fine.. That's fair. But I think we also have to recognize how human society has changed since, say, Aquinas' time. Or since the witch trials. Or the Inquisition. Or the Huguenots. What we know now, and believe now, and the morality we have now.... it's not necessarily at ALL what they had then. And sometimes, we forget that the easy access we have to modern standards simply didn't exist a few centuries ago -- let alone 8 or 9 centuries ago around Aquinas' time.

Barring absolute maniacs like Vlad the Impaler (or insert other stereotypically freaky dictator's names here).... I think that societies generally do the best with what they've got, and with what they know. However backwards and misinformed and morally or spiritually bankrupt we find them NOW, they didn't have the benefit of the hindsight that we do.

Just as a civilization living 200 or 300 years from now may very well look at us, and a lot of our practices, and make similar judgments.

So, even though I am personally pro-life when it comes to pregnancy, and anti-death penalty when it comes to crime, I recognize that those are my 21st century opinions and beliefs.... and when I look at past Church practices.... or past laws regarding execution... or Aquinas' writing, I see them all as being as MUCH a product of their culture (and its many dissenting views and practices) as I am of mine.

Hopefully that made some sense.

 

[JourneyToPeace]

how does one go about applying to be on one of these secular tribunals acquinas talks about ?

Well, first you invent a time machine. Then you undo all of your 21st century knowledge, and understanding, and moral teaching.... and you hop into that time machine, and land yourself roughly in the middle ages. And you do your best to adopt THAT culture's way of thinking, and knowledge. Sucking up to the reigning monarch won't hurt, either.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Well, first you invent a time machine. Then you undo all of your 21st century knowledge, and understanding, and moral teaching.... and you hop into that time machine, and land yourself roughly in the middle ages. And you do your best to adopt THAT culture's way of thinking, and knowledge. Sucking up to the reigning monarch won't hurt, either.

if Jesus returned you would probably tell him to hop in a time machine too and undo all his old fashioned moral teaching

 

[JourneyToPeace]

if Jesus returned you would probably tell him to hop in a time machine too and undo all his old fashioned moral teaching

Jesus is God. We're not. We're limited. He isn't. I'm going to assume that He's always been able to see the full picture, seeing as He created eternity, regardless of what century it is.

 

[Meepy]

how does one go about applying to be on one of these secular tribunals acquinas talks about ?

i mean, the only that is going to work would be if the state was controled by or closely associated to the Church like spain and france were in the middle ages

wasn't tyndale tricked into catholic terrotory ?

Well it would work if there were civil heresy laws. Both England and France had them. But so did Venice and Portugal I think

Tyndale was essentially killed by the to-be Anglicans because he wrote something that offended the crazed King Henry VIII. He was enticed by a fellow englishman to go to Antwerp where he was overtaken by a gang.

The problem I'm having is that Catholic teaching, in its core elements, is immutable and unchangeable. Dogmas can be refined. But never changed in themselves. The problem I am having mostly is Pope Leo's statement , where he condemns the ideal that it is wrong to kill heretics. Maybe this was a quote from the Pope when he was talking about something like politics. But if he was making a definitive pronouncement it will make it all the more confusing to me on whether it is truely right or wrong regarding death penalty for heretics. Thomas Aquinas doesn't help either because he writings speak from an authoritative ground too. Or simply maybe the heretics they were bringing up were the notorious ones who were also great criminals and murderers, and not someone who just disagreed.

I hope I can come to a conclusion where I can understand today's documents of the Church in union with the older ones without having to cancel out one or the other. I don't believe the Church contradicts itself and neither do I believe thats what the Church wants us to do. All the documents of the Church must be reconciled together as one deposit, regardless of time and era. If 2 documents or wordings seem contradictory to each other, like the burning of heretics compared to the documents on the right and sanctity of life. There must be a way to reconcile these things without having to choose one over the other. Its the same problem some catholics have with things like Unam Sanctum vs. Nostre Aetate

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Capital punishment is entirely permissible. Such permission is conferred by God upon the princes and the state. It is explicated via the clear teaching of the Roman Catechism; wherein a state may exercise the just usage of capital punishment.

The text is as follows:

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.

Additionally, such permission is issued in Holy Writ:

Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

The state has the ability and can lawfully execute criminals as is her right. Being as the Church of Rome has explicated this and shown via her Tridentine Catechism and Holy Scripture itself (particularly in the New Testament), those nay-says in our modern era who claim that the usage of capital punishment is no longer requisite or that its usage ought to be so rare as virtually to negate the Church's prior prescriptions are incorrect.

The world we dwell in is quite violent. We've prisons; prisoners may and can escape at anytime. (We simply cannot know.) Execution shows the justice of God in society and shows that just may be delivered swiftly. What is morally right cannot change with the alleged "evolution of society." What is correct or morally permissible according to the teachings of the Roman Church, logically is correct today. Opinions that believe that Capital punishment is no longer needed are merely just that: opinions. Whether the man be a layman, priest, monk, bishop, or Bishop of Rome. Doctrine and Teaching for this issue have already been laid in stone; private or even public opinions on this, are merely, just that, opinions.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Jesus is God. We're not. We're limited. He isn't. I'm going to assume that He's always been able to see the full picture, seeing as He created eternity, regardless of what century it is.

i think you should go re-evaluate your first post

you seem to be stating that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than st thomas acquinas on moral and theological issues

 

[JourneyToPeace]

i think you should go re-evaluate your first post

you seem to be stating that you are smarter and more knowledgeable than st thomas acquinas on moral and theological issues

Oh heck no, not at all.

I wondered if you'd maybe taken it that way.

"Smarter" doesn't come into play here whatsoever. All I was trying to say is that St. Thomas Aquinas is from a very, very different culture and time than we're from now. That does NOT mean that our culture and time is automatically better. In some ways, sure -- I'd take health care in the 21st century over health care in the 13th, for example. Our understanding of how the human body works has several extra centuries of understanding that St. Thomas Aquinas' time couldn't have had. But in other ways, our culture is a lot more spiritually and morally bankrupt than it was in the past.

All my post means is that we often see things differently now than people in the past did. It's why I don't judge anyone in the past who, for example, did decide to execute a heretic. I don't automatically think "Oh, it was evil they did that!" and fly off the handle. They had their own way of doing things, and their societies were often set up much differently than our own. And I "get" that.

Any more clear? I hope so. Going in circles usually makes people dizzy.

I can't explain this any better than I have, so...

Enjoy the conversation, guys.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Interesting thread.

 

[Meepy]

Oh heck no, not at all.

I wondered if you'd maybe taken it that way.

"Smarter" doesn't come into play here whatsoever. All I was trying to say is that St. Thomas Aquinas is from a very, very different culture and time than we're from now. That does NOT mean that our culture and time is automatically better. In some ways, sure -- I'd take health care in the 21st century over health care in the 13th, for example. Our understanding of how the human body works has several extra centuries of understanding that St. Thomas Aquinas' time couldn't have had. But in other ways, our culture is a lot more spiritually and morally bankrupt than it was in the past.

All my post means is that we often see things differently now than people in the past did. It's why I don't judge anyone in the past who, for example, did decide to execute a heretic. I don't automatically think "Oh, it was evil they did that!" and fly off the handle. They had their own way of doing things, and their societies were often set up much differently than our own. And I "get" that.

Any more clear? I hope so. Going in circles usually makes people dizzy.

I can't explain this any better than I have, so...

Enjoy the conversation, guys.

yea, but that is the issue. It is a theological issue more than a cultural one. And thus it becomes a whole different spectrum. The divine is outside space, era, culture, and time.

 

[Forrest GOP]

The penalties for heresey were imposed by states, not the Church. That is a point often overlooked. The Church proclaimed heretics then as it still does today. After that, the state stepped in. Centuries ago heretics were put to death by the decree of the rulers of the time, not the Church.

If, by some wild stretch, Malta were to pass a law today that says all heretics to the Catholic Church were to be put to death, then heretics in Malta would be put to death, but not by the Church.

 

[Meepy]

The penalties for heresey were imposed by states, not the Church. That is a point often overlooked. The Church proclaimed heretics then as it still does today. After that, the state stepped in. Centuries ago heretics were put to death by the decree of the rulers of the time, not the Church.

If, by some wild stretch, Malta were to pass a law today that says all heretics to the Catholic Church were to be put to death, then heretics in Malta would be put to death, but not by the Church.

yea, but the question is. Was it truly right, or wrong, for some theologians and popes to support it. And more importantly, is it wrong for the death penalty of heretics if they have done an enormous amount of damage.

 

[Basil the Great]

The penalties for heresey were imposed by states, not the Church. That is a point often overlooked. The Church proclaimed heretics then as it still does today. After that, the state stepped in. Centuries ago heretics were put to death by the decree of the rulers of the time, not the Church.

If, by some wild stretch, Malta were to pass a law today that says all heretics to the Catholic Church were to be put to death, then heretics in Malta would be put to death, but not by the Church.

So the death penalty was imposed by the State, not the Church? Before you give 100% credence to said argument which is so often used, you better read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Holy Inquisition. According to the C.E., a minimum of five Popes and probably more, mandated that the civil authorities enforce the death penalty for heretics, which was specified in law as burning at the stake, under pain of excommunication if they failed to do so.

 

[Basil the Great]

yea, but the question is. Was it truly right, or wrong, for some theologians and popes to support it. And more importantly, is it wrong for the death penalty of heretics if they have done an enormous amount of damage.

Thomas Aquinas favored the death penalty for heretics, but St. Augustine did not. That leaves us with a question. Which of the two famous Church theologians was right concerning the use of the death penalty for heretics?

 

[benedictaoo]

I know people immediately will look at this issue with anger and awe. As the murdering of people always inflicts these feelings. But I think Thomas Aquinas was looking at it in a way of the prevention of the eternal damnation of others, in which nothing more could be worse than to cause someone the 'second death'. I remember in one writing, it stated that by causing the first death in a heretic, they save the 'second death' of hundreds of others.

How do we reconcile it? Gee... how do we reconcile not keeping slaves in the south anymore with what folks use to believe about it back then?

How about ppl have grown and evolved in each century by the light of the Holy Spirit?

If something is wrong, the Holy Spirit will make it right.

And there is a council called Vatican ll, you may have heard of it. Vll reconciled it, I don't have to. I only need to obey the Church that can not deceive or be deceived.

It totally put all this old stuff into much needed context.

and you and this OP is the reason in a nut shell why the Holy Spirit lead the Church to call the 2nd Vatican council.

We grow and learn becuase they Holy Spirit guides the Church in and to all truth and its sad, sad, sad that so many are still so blind and just doesn't go where the Spirit is taking them.

You want to live back in the day when women were treated like property, and heretic were burnt alive?