St. Thomas More Burning Heretics

[Thomist-in-Training]

In "Exsurge Domine," Pope Leo X's bull against Luther, the Holy Father lists one of [b]Luther's errors[/b] as [quote]"33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."[/quote]

I.e., "It is erroneous to say that the Holy Ghost never wishes heretics to be burned."

If someone better at formal logic has a better phrasing, that's cool, but the basic point is that Holy Mother Church allowed the burning of heretics in some cases.

This comes after the long list of Luther's heresies in the document:

[quote]No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.
...
We have found that [b]these errors or theses are not Catholic[/b], as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.[/quote]

You can check it out at [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm[/url].

[thessalonian]

Thomas More was a government official. Romans 13 indicates that to keep order governement officials may use the sword, i.e. captial punhishment. This may be against our modern day sensitivity but it's in the Word of God!

[Hassan]

I don't know why people find this shocking. Aquinas defended and advocated the practice as well, Cannon law sanctioned it, as did Church councils I believe.

[Akalyte]

oh he means while king henry was beheading and slaughtering catholics left and right just for looking at him the wrong way.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1730882' date='Dec 17 2008, 10:52 PM']oh he means while king henry was beheading and slaughtering catholics left and right just for looking at him the wrong way.[/quote]


Wow, great historical analysis.

[Winchester]

[i]Concise[/i].

The killing of heretics was pursued well before the Church started the inquisitional courts. In fact, the processes in the inquisitions probably saved many lives. The actions of the state perhaps saved many souls, and certainly the two combined saved the faith.

[Guest]

How could this ever be ok though ?
I just watched a show on etwn tonight talking about how the church teaches how much we are to love our seperated christian bretheren. And how we are supposed to try to convert them and show the churches authority but at the same time respect where they are at. How could burning them at the stake for not being catholic be ok ? A year ago I would be trying to put an anticatholic twist on this remark but im not now. I just want to know how it could every be justifiable and ok to do this ?

Edited December 18, 2008 by Guest

[Winchester]

No one is to be burned at the stake for not being Catholic. That's not how it worked. Separated brethren and heretic are not synonyms.

[socalscout]

I'm not questioning St. Thomas' canonization. I am questioning why people are defending burning human beings at the stake.

If it was accepted to burn them at the stake then it should be accepted today. If I go to the house of some of the prominent Anti Catholics we know of, give him a chance to repent and if he still does not want to then FLAME ON it should be perfectly ok, right?

A simplified analogy I will agree but lets put into today's context. Lets say I got him fired, foreclosed on his house, take away any possesions and make a him homeless outcast until it changes his views. Would this be justifiable?

I'm with Delivery Boy on this, how can this be OK?

Edited December 18, 2008 by socalscout

[Winchester]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1731145' date='Dec 18 2008, 08:31 AM']If it was accepted to burn them at the stake then it should be accepted today. If I go to the house of some of the prominent Anti Catholics we know of, give him a chance to repent and if he still does not want to then FLAME ON it should be perfectly ok, right?[/quote]
Nope.

1. Anti-Catholics are not automatically heretics. You must have left the Church to be a heretic, in this sense of the word.

2. You are not a member of the insquisitional courts. Your description is exactly what they were founded to prevent--mob justice. And they did it.

3. You haven't the authority of the state, which is the group that carried out the penalty, which was the penalty the state exacted for heresy. Repeat and serious heretics were turned over to the state for the state's punishment. The inquisitional process served to protect people from the state, which was far quicker and more easily convinced of heresy.

If you believe that we can go to Hell, and if you believe that salvation comes from Christ through the Church, then you must believe heresy offends God, and that it could lead someone to hell. Heresiarchs can lead people away from the Church. The concern is the human soul, whose disposition people used to take far more seriously than they do now. Today, heretics wouldn't be executed because the state doesn't exact that (or any) punishment.

Yes, it's a terrible thing. But isn't Hell worse?

[Guest]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1731144' date='Dec 18 2008, 09:30 AM']No one is to be burned at the stake for not being Catholic. That's not how it worked. Separated brethren and heretic are not synonyms.[/quote]

I thought heretics were christians who werent catholic ? Now if someone is an extreme heteric and very anticatholic and violient I could see how violence could then be returned to this person. So thats what im curious about. Were these heterics who were burned VERY anticatholic and viloently threating to catholics at that time ?

[socalscout]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1731151' date='Dec 18 2008, 07:39 AM']Nope.

1. Anti-Catholics are not automatically heretics. You must have left the Church to be a heretic, in this sense of the word.

2. You are not a member of the insquisitional courts. Your description is exactly what they were founded to prevent--mob justice. And they did it.

3. You haven't the authority of the state, which is the group that carried out the penalty, which was the penalty the state exacted for heresy. Repeat and serious heretics were turned over to the state for the state's punishment. The inquisitional process served to protect people from the state, which was far quicker and more easily convinced of heresy.

If you believe that we can go to Hell, and if you believe that salvation comes from Christ through the Church, then you must believe heresy offends God, and that it could lead someone to hell. Heresiarchs can lead people away from the Church. The concern is the human soul, whose disposition people used to take far more seriously than they do now. Today, heretics wouldn't be executed because the state doesn't exact that (or any) punishment.

Yes, it's a terrible thing. But isn't Hell worse?[/quote]


I did correct my post and state that it was a simplified analogy but what if those conditons, you just stated, were met today? Could you then defend and justify burning someone at the stake in 2008?

Yes Hell is worse but I don't think it is our job to make sure they get there faster.

Edited December 18, 2008 by socalscout

[Winchester]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1731153' date='Dec 18 2008, 08:42 AM']I thought heretics were christians who werent catholic ? Now if someone is an extreme heteric and very anticatholic and violient I could see how violence could then be returned to this person. So thats what im curious about. Were these heterics who were burned VERY anticatholic and viloently threating to catholics at that time ?[/quote]
A heretic is a Catholic who has rejected Church teaching. There are degrees of heresy, and if one keeps silent, it's not a problem.

Since I don't have the documents, I don't know, but generally, heretics were not released to the state unless it was a grave matter. That being said, these were humans running the courts, so the justice would be flawed.

But heresy was dangerous to the state as well as the populace. Putting a heretic to death would be comparable to putting a traitor to death.

I think this answers socal, as well.

[Guest]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1731162' date='Dec 18 2008, 09:53 AM']A heretic is a Catholic who has rejected Church teaching. There are degrees of heresy, and if one keeps silent, it's not a problem.

Since I don't have the documents, I don't know, but generally, heretics were not released to the state unless it was a grave matter. That being said, these were humans running the courts, so the justice would be flawed.

But heresy was dangerous to the state as well as the populace. Putting a heretic to death would be comparable to putting a traitor to death.

I think this answers socal, as well.[/quote]

Peace Whinchestrer, Godbless
How was heresy dangerous ? By drawing cathoilcs and others away from the sacrments ? From what I know (very little ) protestants today are assumed our seperated brothers and sisters in Christ. At one point would they become "dangerous" today and it be justifiable to burn them ?
If church and state werent seperated and it was run by the cathoic church would they again be burned if they didnt convert ?

[LouisvilleFan]

Might be worth observing that all these events occured before the world knew anything of a Magna Carta, Declaration of Indepedence, or Bill of Rights. Under a monarchy, you have nothing if you don't have loyalty to the crown. Why do you all think our forefathers were willing to fight and die to establish a free country?

As an aside, it was for loyalty to both his heavenly and earthly kings that St. Thomas More embraced his own capital punishment.

Just watched "A Man for All Seasons" for the first time last weekend... excellent movie!

Edited December 18, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1731184' date='Dec 18 2008, 10:07 AM']Peace Whinchestrer, Godbless
How was heresy dangerous ? By drawing cathoilcs and others away from the sacrments ? From what I know (very little ) protestants today are assumed our seperated brothers and sisters in Christ. At one point would they become "dangerous" today and it be justifiable to burn them ?
If church and state werent seperated and it was run by the cathoic church would they again be burned if they didnt convert ?[/quote]


The difference between a Protestant and a heretic is that the heretic was Catholic and freely, publicly left the Church for the sake of some heretical error. In other words, you must first be Catholic before you can become a heretic. And, as was pointed out by Winchester, the heretics were given every opportunity to recant - at the very least holding their heresy in silence, rather than spreading its damning effects - to avoid the fire.

Can it in some cases be justifiable to execute someone for physical murder? Yes.

Can it in some cases be justifiable to execute someone for spiritual murder? Yes, and since the crime is infinitely greater than any physical offense, it is understandable that fire would be used (for reasons given in one of my previous posts) rather than, say, beheading.

Does everyone have the right to "mob justice" or the self-appointed office of executioner? Obviously not. Even back in the day, as Winchester pointed out, this was a controlled and moderated situation precisely for the intentions of preventing mob justice. Abuses, as in any legal system, were the exceptions and not the norm. And in every case a person could avoid the flames if only they said the simple phrase "I repent".

Finally, as with capital punishment for physical murders, there is little - if any - justifiable excuse for most - if not all - capital punishment for heresy. Today, the crimes may be safely contained due to technological and civil advancements. Likewise, heresy may be safely contained by means of the same advancements - particularly the ease of the spread of information. Communications technologies are water to the flames of heresy as prisons are to the dangers of the killers.

[Ziggamafu]

One final note:

I'll admit that I have not checked the facts for myself on the following assertion, but I am 99.999% certain that the Church Magisterium never actually executed anyone. The task and judgment regarding punishments in the temporal sphere was quite deliberately left in the hands of the State. Yes, the Church approved of executions in some cases; but the sentences and executions themselves were carried out by the State.

As the State is no longer a Catholic entity, there would of course be no means by which a burning could be undertaken. Heresy is no longer considered by the State to be a public offense.

[socalscout]

Very good points and I agree with the logic but not the application. But it seems we are passing the buck onto the state to justify the morality of burning someone at the stake.
[quote]Can it in some cases be justifiable to execute someone for spiritual murder? Yes, and since the crime is infinitely greater than any physical offense, it is understandable that fire would be used (for reasons given in one of my previous posts) rather than, say, beheading.[/quote]

So if the State, lets say one in South America which I think still has some pseudo Catholic States, decided to take up the fight and burn heritics after a long drawn out judicial process then it would be justifiable? You could actually come on Phatmass and say that it is perfectly ok in 2008 to burn someone at the stake or even execute someone with letahl injection? The Holy See would would give their seal of approval for this? Do you think?


It looks like, to me, that if the State decided to do this again it would be legitimate but that seems to me to give too much to the State when resolving issues of Faith. You clearly seperate the Magisterium from the State but justify the burnings because they were conducted by the State and was policy at the time. It looks like you are stating that the morality of torturing someone to death is decided by the State. I'm not saying you are but it looks like it.

Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart but I would assume burning anyone at the stake, regardless of the crime or times, is wrong.

Edited December 18, 2008 by socalscout

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1730860' date='Dec 17 2008, 09:32 PM']I don't know why people find this shocking. Aquinas defended and advocated the practice as well, Cannon law sanctioned it, as did Church councils I believe.[/quote]

Is Romans 13 true or not? If it is true then the governement has the right to use the sword. Mr. Moore being a governement official has to do his duty, no matter how hard that might be. Killing of souls in those days was considered a higher offense than taking someones life. I am not directing this directly at Hassan as if I recall he doesn't like the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong.

Also as I understand, Mr. Moore bent over backward to get the offenders to reconcile with the Church.

[socalscout]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1731271' date='Dec 18 2008, 11:07 AM']Is Romans 13 true or not? If it is true then the governement has the right to use the sword. Mr. Moore being a governement official has to do his duty, no matter how hard that might be. Killing of souls in those days was considered a higher offense than taking someones life. I am not directing this directly at Hassan as if I recall he doesn't like the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong.

Also as I understand, Mr. Moore bent over backward to get the offenders to reconcile with the Church.[/quote]

Yeah but no one is answering my question and Delivery boy's question. If it occurred today given all the requirements to legitmize this exectuion would you be in support of burning a heritic at the stake and would the Church be in support of it?

If it was ok to do it then, then it should be ok to do it now right?

Edited December 18, 2008 by socalscout