Heresy

[Resurrexi]

Pope Leo X condemned the following proposition: "Haereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritus." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1483), along with forty other errors of Martin Luther. The Holy Father decreed of these propositions:

"All and each of the above mentioned articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively heretical, or scandalous, or false, or offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds, and in opposition to Catholic truth." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1492)

Edited June 21, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

Perhaps the instigators of heresy who did damage to both the unity of the Church and unity of the state. Like Martin Luther. But not every single heretic for the pure fact that they deny orthodox Catholicism.

Ofcourse, now that we live in a pluralistic and secular society neither of these preconditions apply anymore.

[Resurrexi]

Would you agree then, that the execution of Jan Hus was morally acceptable?

[OraProMe]

What was the situation?

[Resurrexi]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm"]You can read about it here.[/url]

[Resurrexi]

It looks like we've got some voters dissenting from the Magisterium...

[Gregorius]

To say that the church moves against the Holy Spirit is simply wrong. That seems to be Pope Leo X's main point in this letter. But your question asks whether or not it is all right to have a heretic killed by the state authority. The state authority does not have the Holy Spirit, only the Church does. In my opinion, the state should not interfere, nor should it had in the past, with the matters of the church. Christ does not condemn. Neither does His Church. If you don't believe me, look at the part of the letter after the mentioned errors. The letter does not seem to be defending the burning of heretics as much as it is defending the authority of the Church. Then again, I'll have to read it again. It is a very long document.

[Kitty]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1897605' date='Jun 21 2009, 01:14 PM']It looks like we've got some voters dissenting from the Magisterium...


[/quote]

Oh who cares.

I like how you set up a poll with two different choices and then you squawk about the people who have a different opinion than you.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Kitty

[Gregorius]

I guess Rex likes to debate... and he seems to be the type that has to be right all the time.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1897701' date='Jun 21 2009, 01:52 PM']To say that the church moves against the Holy Spirit is simply wrong.[/quote]

Well, that's one possible conclusion...

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1897745' date='Jun 21 2009, 05:54 PM']I guess Rex likes to debate... and he seems to be the type that has to be right all the time. [/quote]
Or course.

[HisChildForever]

So if someone denies Jesus Christ's existence or divinity, we should execute them?

[Gregorius]

No, I think Rex's argument is it is wrong to say the Holy Spirit does not want heretics to burn. I think his interpretation goes to the extreme. I'd rather not go into this one.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1897890' date='Jun 21 2009, 08:21 PM']I think his interpretation goes to the extreme.[/quote]

Always does.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1897701' date='Jun 21 2009, 03:52 PM']To say that the church moves against the Holy Spirit is simply wrong. That seems to be Pope Leo X's main point in this letter. But your question asks whether or not it is all right to have a heretic killed by the state authority. The state authority does not have the Holy Spirit, only the Church does. In my opinion, the state should not interfere, nor should it had in the past, with the matters of the church. Christ does not condemn. Neither does His Church. If you don't believe me, look at the part of the letter after the mentioned errors. The letter does not seem to be defending the burning of heretics as much as it is defending the authority of the Church. Then again, I'll have to read it again. It is a very long document.[/quote]

An ecclesiastical court never executed anyone. Heretics were always turned over to secular authorities to be executed. For example, you see in the trial of Jan Hus at the Council of Constance: "This holy synod of Constance, seeing that God's church has nothing more that it can do, relinquishes John Hus to the judgment of the secular authority and decrees that he is to be relinquished to the secular court."

By the way, I would not argue that all heretics in all times should be executed. According to the decree the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" is condemned. Obviously the Holy Spirit, who is God, does not actively will sin but merely permits it. If it was not always contrary to God's will to that heretics be executed in Leo X's time, it cannot have always been immoral then.

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1898015' date='Jun 21 2009, 10:03 PM']An ecclesiastical court never executed anyone. Heretics were always turned over to secular authorities to be executed. For example, you see in the trial of Jan Hus at the Council of Constance: "This holy synod of Constance, seeing that God's church has nothing more that it can do, relinquishes John Hus to the judgment of the secular authority and decrees that he is to be relinquished to the secular court."

By the way, I would not argue that all heretics in all times should be executed. According to the decree the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" is condemned. Obviously the Holy Spirit, who is God, does not actively will sin but merely permits it. If it was not always contrary to God's will to that heretics be executed in Leo X's time, it cannot have always been immoral then.[/quote]
Oh, if this then is merely an issue of state authorities executing people, putting charges aside, the church has always taught that capital punishment was always an option if said individual was a clear and present danger to society and there were no other effective means of dealing with said individual. The Church has generally respected the laws of the various nations, even if they don't agree with them all. Law is law. Killing shouldn't be first option, of course, and now it no longer has to be an option.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Gregorius' post='1898039' date='Jun 21 2009, 10:20 PM']Oh, if this then is merely an issue of state authorities executing people, putting charges aside, the church has always taught that capital punishment was always an option if said individual was a clear and present danger to society and there were no other effective means of dealing with said individual. The Church has generally respected the laws of the various nations, even if they don't agree with them all. Law is law. Killing shouldn't be first option, of course, and now it no longer has to be an option.[/quote]

I am aware that capital punishment is morally acceptable in certain circumstances. This thread is specifically about capital punishment for the crime of heresy.

[son_of_angels]

It would be morally permissable, provided that the crime was gravely harmful to the society itself, the heretic was unrepentant or recidivist, and there was no better solution. Many occassions for these preconditions were in effect in the ancient world.

It is not entirely true to say that the Church NEVER ordered an execution through an ecclesiastical court. However, in most cases, the Church had no need, because the criminal would confess and repent. The Church would hand them over to the state with the recommendation for a moderate penalty, with the understanding that death would be the civil penalty. However, for heretics who were constantly returning to their previous sin, the Church did occassionally give the sentence themselves, even if they had to rely on civil authorities to carry it out (the Church did not generally have its own executioners).

Different approaches for different times and societies. There are no, or few, societies in which such methods could be employed for benefit, and the era of mass communications and global expansion means that whatever action we take is no longer a matter of merely local discipline. When there is a "Bhutan" of Catholicism, maybe we can talk about this as a legitimate option. In the meanwhile, why worry about judging our elders?

[heavenseeker]

going to go with no on this

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1898350' date='Jun 22 2009, 03:46 AM']going to go with no on this[/quote]

Are you saying that you disagree with the Magisterium?