Burning Heretics At The Stake In 2008

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1731554' date='Dec 19 2008, 12:05 AM']+J.M.J.+
source?[/quote]

I'd have to go to the cathedral to prove it and it's a long bike ride away!

..although there has been a list in operation in the anglican church of banned preachers, but for reasons of ecumenism i'm keeping some of the details witheld.

Edited December 18, 2008 by RandomProddy

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Fair enough.

[Tinkerlina]

[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]

I would definitely not be Ok with it, I would be pretty upset if that ever happened, but I can't see it happening in this day and age. -Katie

[Socrates]

I say we wait until 2009 to burn 'em.

Come New Years we can have a big barbecue!

[Lena]

Let's go on a witch hunt while we're at it though I'm kidding! How ludicrous would it be to even think about burning someone on a stake?? It would never be justifiable, that's inhumane.

[dominicansoul]

i would much rather brown steaks with heretics rather than burn heretics at the stake...


...yum...steak........

[Guest]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1731412' date='Dec 18 2008, 04:37 PM']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 ?[/quote]

no one has an answer to my question ?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1731558' date='Dec 18 2008, 07:08 PM']I don't understand. In both scinarios the heretic and the Church have the same communication capacity (arguably in those times the Church had the better), simply because the communication today is faster does not change equations as they say. Now a heretic can send an e-mail advocating his views and the Church can send an e-mail warning the faithfull. Before a heretic could ride a horse to a neighboring town and preach his views and the Church could send a dispatch warning the faithfull.[/quote]

In the Old Days, a person could say that he saw a dragon or a goblin and, given enough communication skills, could convince a whole village of the story. Today, precisely because of our advancements, people are far more skeptical. We all (by "all" I am generalizing) can read. We all have access to libraries and facts; we are all educated. In matters of faith and logic - the world of unseen truth - things can be twisted in fantastic ways. As previously pointed out, there was a time when it could take months or years for any given group of people to find out what the news was from the other side of the known "world". That time has passed. We can now immediately apply the principles of critical thought when any new story or idea is cooked up; we know very quickly when the Church supports or condemns such innovations.

Back then, heresy was by no means contained so easily. Most people were illiterate and uneducated, prone to rash and hasty judgment, had little - if any access - to information necessary for research, and had to wait for long periods of time to get word from Rome (or in some unfortunate cases, their own bishop). Heresy was and is like a spark. The difference between the threat of heresy then and the threat of heresy today is in the flammability of the kindling and the proximity to water.

[LouisvilleFan]

I'm not buying these arguments that heresy itself was punishable by death. I think it's got everything to do with the nature of monarchies and enforcing the king's authority, which included loyalty to the king's religion. If the king is Catholic, you are Catholic; if the king is Lutheran, you are Lutheran; if the king declares himself the head of the Church in your land, you obey the king as head of the Church in your land.

And, as I said before, this is why our ancestors left Europe Freedom of religion isn't just a nice idea that some folks came up with while brainstorming what kind of nation to found; it's the very thing they fought for and that we continue to fight for.

Edited December 19, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Didacus]

Way back in 93, when I told my friends I was heading for World Youth Day, they all asked me what I was going to do while visiting the pope (none the many of my friends were very religious).

I told them we were going to burn protestants in a great big fire!

Then they all wanted to come all the sudden.

Back to you Bob...

[socalscout]

What I don't understand is comparing physical murder with "spiritual murder" and justifying capital punishment for both.

Clearly spiritual murder is worse but it is not absolute like physical murder. It can be reversed. You cannot convince some to be unmurdered, physically, but you can convince someone to repent.

So really they are being burned for attempted spiritual murder. I wrote this in the other thread, it is measuring the morality of the act based on technology. The printing press saved heretics because it made the uneducated more accountable thus making the act of burning somenone to death a little less justifiable. To me its black and white. Its either bad from the start or it never is, like abortion.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1731897' date='Dec 19 2008, 10:20 AM']What I don't understand is comparing physical murder with "spiritual murder" and justifying capital punishment for both.

Clearly spiritual murder is worse but it is not absolute like physical murder. It can be reversed. You cannot convince some to be unmurdered, physically, but you can convince someone to repent.

So really they are being burned for attempted spiritual murder. I wrote this in the other thread, it is measuring the morality of the act based on technology. The printing press saved heretics because it made the uneducated more accountable thus making the act of burning somenone to death a little less justifiable. To me its black and white. Its either bad from the start or it never is, like abortion.[/quote]

What do you think about some of God's commands regarding capital punishment in the Old Testament? Were God's commands bad from the start? If not, are they then always acceptable?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1731881' date='Dec 19 2008, 08:20 AM']In the Old Days, a person could say that he saw a dragon or a goblin and, given enough communication skills, could convince a whole village of the story.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean by "in the old days". Sure there was a time when zoology was a less established dicipline, but naturally that is not comparable to theology which the vast majority of people are much less aquainted with. The reason that such a zoological claim would be met with wider skepticism today is because people have more grounding in the basics of physical science, evolutionary biology, and zoology in general. By contrast I don't think you can claim the same is true today with reguard to theology. If anything I'd say there has been a decline in general theological. The gullability of the community had nothing to do with the individual in questions communication ability but with the general gaps in knowledge of the larger world.

[quote]Today, precisely because of our advancements, people are far more skeptical.[/quote]

I have no idea how you could support that claim with scientific data.

[quote]We all (by "all" I am generalizing) can read. We all have access to libraries and facts; we are all educated. In matters of faith and logic - the world of unseen truth - things can be twisted in fantastic ways.[/quote]

That is true for historic Christendom when relegiosity is on the decline, but not nearly so much with reguards to the South America, Africa, the east orient and other places where Catholicism is expanding.

[quote]As previously pointed out, there was a time when it could take months or years for any given group of people to find out what the news was from the other side of the known "world". That time has passed.[/quote]

Yes, and as I pointe out that is not necessairly sound reasoning. The change in communication is with reguards to speed. In "older" times it is not as though the heretic had the modern postal service while the Church had a horse and buggy, the heretic and the Church both had the same avalability to communicative technology. In fact if anything it was the Church that had the advantage in older times. In medeval Europe the Church had a ready audience in the populace who was much more religious and consiquently willing to bend their intelect to the Church's dictates. If anything the Church now has fewer means and less influence in getting its message out to oppose the latest heresy.



[quote]Back then, heresy was by no means contained so easily.[/quote]

So you say. Yet in older times the state and Church both assented to the need to protect the populace from heretical innovations, today the state no longer makes such an assent. How is heresy more easiely contained? Perhapse you could argue that the Church can more easiely warn the faithfull, I dispute that but's let's grant it for the sake of argument here, that does not mean the heresy is more easiely "contained" far from it. The Church now has almost no means of "containing" the spread of the heresy.

Moreover if containment was the end goal why not simply imprison the individual for life?

[quote]Most people were illiterate and uneducated, prone to rash and hasty judgment, had little - if any access - to information necessary for research, and had to wait for long periods of time to get word from Rome (or in some unfortunate cases, their own bishop). Heresy was and is like a spark. The difference between the threat of heresy then and the threat of heresy today is in the flammability of the kindling and the proximity to water.[/quote]


I think your reasoning is, with all due respect, unsound.

1-in the Church's justifications for burning heretics was justification contingent on commuicational ability?

2-If containment was the goal why not imprison the heretic rather than killing him?

3-why does the speed of technology matter when the capabilities of each respective parties ability to communication eas and remains equivalent?

Three main questions along with the other issues.

[Hassan]

It seems to me that rather than actually representing the Church's position or accounting for the Change in the Church's views on individual consciousness you are simply providing a plausable after the fact rationalization.

If communication and educational infrastructure broke down would the Church be once again obligated to kill heretics?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1732190' date='Dec 19 2008, 06:33 PM']It seems to me that rather than actually representing the Church's position or accounting for the Change in the Church's views on individual consciousness you are simply providing a plausable after the fact rationalization.

If communication and educational infrastructure broke down would the Church be once again obligated to kill heretics?[/quote]


If our ability to safely contain physical threats broke down then we would be morally capable - and perhaps obligated - to utilize capital punishment.

So yes, the same would apply for spiritual threats.

Physical threats are contained by prisons.
Spiritual threats are contained by education.

[Ziggamafu]

I should add that this is just as much an exploration of history and moral theology for me as it is for anyone else in this thread. I certainly had no intentions of getting sucked into a debate on this topic; I merely gave my opinion and I am sort of figuring it out as I go. I see the sense in St. Thomas More's arguments...I suppose I am attempting to more clearly articulate (for myself, really) what it is that I "see".

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Lena' post='1731670' date='Dec 18 2008, 10:38 PM']Let's go on a witch hunt while we're at it though I'm kidding! How ludicrous would it be to even think about burning someone on a stake?? It would never be justifiable, that's inhumane.[/quote]

I agree-I'm having difficulty understanding why it was [i]ever[/i] allowed-I realize times were very different but it still seems horrible...-Katie

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1731888' date='Dec 19 2008, 09:36 AM']I'm not buying these arguments that heresy itself was punishable by death. I think it's got everything to do with the nature of monarchies and enforcing the king's authority, which included loyalty to the king's religion. If the king is Catholic, you are Catholic; if the king is Lutheran, you are Lutheran; if the king declares himself the head of the Church in your land, you obey the king as head of the Church in your land.[/quote]

I think there is a lot of truth to what you're saying-for example, when I studied the Spanish Inquistion in my Civilization of Spain course at school, I was told it was more than anything a way for Isabel and Ferdinand to punish political enemies. Not that I'm in any way sanctioning the participation of the clergy in it, but there was definitely a huge, predominant political aspect. -Katie

[Maximilianus]

The Church had little to do with the Spanish Iquisition. Pope Sixtus IV tried to put a stop to the craziness by ordering the bishops to take a direct role in the trials, giving the accused legal counsel and the right to appeal their case to Rome. Ferdinand didn't like that and made the Inquisition part of the monarchy, separate from ecclesiastical authority.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Maximilianus

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1732259' date='Dec 19 2008, 09:14 PM']If our ability to safely contain physical threats broke down then we would be morally capable - and perhaps obligated - to utilize capital punishment.

So yes, the same would apply for spiritual threats.

Physical threats are contained by prisons.
Spiritual threats are contained by education.[/quote]

Except that is not what the Church says. In the 50's the Church put out a document affirming individuals rights to religious freedom within the context of the state. Which is why I am having trouble understanding the connection to communication. Looking at the History of the Church's teaching on this I never encountered any justification based on communication, however prior to the 20th century there were denials of freedom of consciousness and religion. The Church was defending the faithfull from spiritual danger but the change was not correlative to changes in information technology but changes in the Church's view of man and the state, Church and state, and the right of the invididual.

As I understand it anyway.