A Bible question!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow, he doesn't seem like a first amendment kind of guy.

This is a misunderstanding.

He isn't stating, "this is what I believe ought to be done."

He is stating, "this is the argument that says that heretics must be executed."

Aquinas actually states right at the top of that passage:

It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:24-25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

He goes on to conclude that the proper response to heretics is to apply church discipline to them, give them three opportunities to repent and then excommunicate.

He also goes on to explain that heresy isn't holding contrary opinions to the Church, it is both expressing those opinions and rejecting the authority of the Church. The second part is crucial. For he says that righteous men can disagree while heretics must have the will to split and form their own groups apart from the church.

He even goes on to argue that heresy has nothing to do with unbelief, because unbelievers cannot be heretics, and that the sin comes from pride and not lack of understanding. Heresy is found in all religions, hence it stems from a failing of the flesh, not of the mind.

[Nikolai]

I don't know much about Aquinas' views on this, but I visited this site, which quotes both what you quote Ben and what gribbler quotes. Further, it quotes the second part of what gribbler quoted:

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 admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet 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 delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

That does sound like he is only lenient for the first and second occation the heretic refuses to adhere to the Church, doesn't it?

[BlackCat]

I don't know much about Aquinas' views on this, but I visited this site, which quotes both what you quote Ben and what gribbler quotes. Further, it quotes the second part of what gribbler quoted:

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 admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet 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 delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

That does sound like he is only lenient for the first and second occation the heretic refuses to adhere to the Church, doesn't it?

Nikolai, what you qoute there sounds quite unchristian to me

[Ben Kenobi]

That does sound like he is only lenient for the first and second occation the heretic refuses to adhere to the Church, doesn't it?

Interesting that he brings up Arius. Arius was protected like Luther was protected, by the secular authorities of the time. So excommunication + turning them over to the authorities, seems to be the appropriate punishment. The real question here is whether the secular authorities (he makes the comparison with forgers) should punish heretics in the same manner.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nikolai, what you qoute there sounds quite unchristian to me

So you are against the Church turning people over to the state?

[BlackCat]

Nikolai, please correct me if I have misunderstood that quote. I read it as if the church misses to convert an unbeliver, then they turn the subject to the state for execution so the church doesn't get blood on its hands. This has of course nothing to do with criminal priests that are sent to the civil courts to get their proper punishment.

[Elok]

Specifically, it's heretics, not just unbelievers--i.e., (ex)Catholics who try to start their own form of the Christian church, such as the Cathars. I don't know what his policy is WRT Muslims, etc.

[BlackCat]

Well, that still sounds pretty unchristian to me - it could actually be called muslim

[Kidlicious]

Umm, wtf? Ok dude, I dunno what to say.

He's arguing that natural rights exist. That rights have nothing to do with politics.

It seems to me that he believed that the state and church, and even society as.a whole (maybe) is above the individual. Natural law doesn't protect the individual from that which is higher good.

[Elok]

I don't care for it myself. Of course, in those days heretics could pose a real threat to the social order. Cathars, for example, refused to swear oaths (which undermined the whole feudal system), disapproved of procreation and were generally pacifists. Which is not to defend their oppression--the Albigensian Crusade was brutal even by religious-oppression standards--but heretics didn't seem as innocuous then as, say, Wiccans do now.

[DaShi]

Until it affects your children.

[BlackCat]

I don't care for it myself. Of course, in those days heretics could pose a real threat to the social order. Cathars, for example, refused to swear oaths (which undermined the whole feudal system), disapproved of procreation and were generally pacifists. Which is not to defend their oppression--the Albigensian Crusade was brutal even by religious-oppression standards--but heretics didn't seem as innocuous then as, say, Wiccans do now.

So it was merely a politcal view than it was a religious such. Fine, but that means that it doesn't nessecarily works that way today.

Further, it would be logical to look at the church as a political body with the implications that have (taxation, control etc).

[Elok]

Luckily, neither my wife nor I really "rebelled" during adolescence, so we're hoping we'll be spared in that respect, DaShi. If the kid does turn to a weird religion, it'll probably be something more exotic than Wicca.

[Kidlicious]

I don't care for it myself. Of course, in those days heretics could pose a real threat to the social order. Cathars, for example, refused to swear oaths (which undermined the whole feudal system), disapproved of procreation and were generally pacifists. Which is not to defend their oppression--the Albigensian Crusade was brutal even by religious-oppression standards--but heretics didn't seem as innocuous then as, say, Wiccans do now.

What if Wiccan were the state religion and you had to be one or they executed you?

[DaShi]

Luckily, neither my wife nor I really "rebelled" during adolescence, so we're hoping we'll be spared in that respect, DaShi. If the kid does turn to a weird religion, it'll probably be something more exotic than Wicca.

You'll be disappointed.