Should Heretics Be Burned?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1894616' date='Jun 17 2009, 06:23 PM']Thank you. Is there a source that delineates the relationship between ex cathedra pronoucements and documents like the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I don't know what class of documents this is)? My first reaction would be that the Catechism would have to be interpreted in light of the ex cathedra statement and not the other way around.[/quote]

I wouldn't call the condemnation of the statement "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" an infallible teaching. It is certainly an exercise of the Pope's authentic Magisterium, though. (N.B., this is just my opinion; it might, in fact, be infallible.)

If you want to gain a better understanding of which papal and conciliar pronouncements are infallible, I would suggest that your read this [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"]this[/url].

Edited June 17, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

It is important to remember that even in Roman Catholic teaching the CDF itself is not infallible.

[Resurrexi]

That CDF document is an authentic interpretation of John Paul II's Ad tuendam fidem.

Also, if I recall correctly, in the early 20th century there was a debate about whether documents of the Holy Office approved by the Pope [i]in forma specifica[/i] could be infallible.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894646' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:46 PM']That CDF document is an authentic interpretation of John Paul II's Ad tuendam fidem.

Also, if I recall correctly, in the early 20th century there was a debate about whether documents of the Holy Office approved by the Pope [i]in forma specifica[/i] could be infallible.[/quote]
CDF actions are by definition (even with papal approval) non-infallible according to Roman Catholic teaching. Pastor Bonus (the papal constitution reorganizing the curia) makes it clear that the pope cannot delegate his authority to curial departments.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894646' date='Jun 17 2009, 04:46 PM']That CDF document is an authentic interpretation of John Paul II's Ad tuendam fidem.

Also, if I recall correctly, in the early 20th century there was a debate about whether documents of the Holy Office approved by the Pope [i]in forma specifica[/i] could be infallible.[/quote]
Ad Tuendam Fidem is simply the canonical revisions. The CDF doctrinal commentary was not approved by the pope at all, but was issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone.

[Resurrexi]

I never said that the commentary was approved[i] in forma specifica[/i]. I am pretty sure, though, that all CDF documents are approved by the Holy Father before they are promulgated.

[jkaands]

During the Middle Ages the state and the Roman Catholic church were essentially one entity. The church declared someone a heretic worthy of death, and the state carried out the sentence. Joan of Arc was declared a heretic by the church and she was burned by the state. In Spain, the Dominican order tried, supervised the torture of (bt the state) , and declared their victims heretics and the state burned them.

You can see a painting of “St Dominic Presiding over the Burning of Heretics” by Pedro Berruguete here:

[url="http://www.wga.hu/framese.html?/html/b/berrugue/pedro/dominic.html"]http://www.wga.hu/framese.html?/html/b/ber...ro/dominic.html[/url]

From the same website:

“Berruguete lived during the last years of the reconquista when those sentenced to be burned at the stake were mostly Moors who had been converted to Christianity but who were suspected of practicing Mohammedanism in secret. Berruguete witnessed the death of these heretics and this painting faithfully illustrates the manner in which the sentences imposed by the Inquisition were enforced in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries: he records the half reprieve granted to penitents, the throttling that preceded burning and even the pointed hats worn by those condemned to do penance. “

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.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1894670' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:07 PM']I never said that the commentary was approved[i] in forma specifica[/i]. I am pretty sure, though, that all CDF documents are approved by the Holy Father before they are promulgated.[/quote]
If a CDF document is approved by the pope it says so at the very end of it, i.e., in one of the concluding paragraphs. The CDF doctrinal commentary was not approved by the pope, but was simply the work of Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone, and since it has no papal approval it merely states the personal opinions of its authors.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894665' date='Jun 17 2009, 07:02 PM']CDF actions are by definition (even with papal approval) non-infallible according to Roman Catholic teaching. Pastor Bonus (the papal constitution reorganizing the curia) makes it clear that the pope cannot delegate his authority to curial departments.[/quote]

[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.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1894677' date='Jun 17 2009, 07:10 PM']If a CDF document is approved by the pope it says so at the very end of it, i.e., in one of the concluding paragraphs. The CDF doctrinal commentary was not approved by the pope, but was simply the work of Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone, and since it has no papal approval it merely states the personal opinions of its authors.[/quote]

I would say that, though the document does not have papal approval, it is much more than the personal opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger. After all, the title of the document is "Doctrinal Commentary" which implies that it is authoritative. I would also assume that it was published in the [i]AAS[/i].

[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.