A Bible question!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

State preventing one from setting up its own state is a very different thing than a Christian faith preventing one from setting up his or her own version of the Faith. For one, Our Lord and Savior being subjected to unjust capital punishment should be enough to dissuade Christians from standing by while they are killed due to "religious fraud".

And Aquinus doesn't say let the secular authorities do with that person as they wish, but says, they will turn him over to the secular tribunal TO BE EXTERMINATED - the death is already presupposed due to the person's heresy. Just he doesn't want churchmen getting their hands dirty.

[Ben Kenobi]

State preventing one from setting up its own state is a very different thing than a Christian faith preventing one from setting up his or her own version of the Faith.

The state is much harsher than the christians. Does the state give you 3 strikes?

For one, Our Lord and Savior being subjected to unjust capital punishment should be enough to dissuade Christians from standing by while they are killed due to "religious fraud".

So you are suggesting that Jesus was a religious fraud? Or that he was innocent of the charges? If he's innocent of the charges, that is one thing, but I do not believe you can argue that he attempted to defy the existing religious authority. For one, he taught in the Temples, and said that 'not the least stroke of the pen' of the law would perish. Quite the contrary.

Jesus argued that the Law itself upheld his teachings, and that people should not rebel from the authority but rather, should reform the authority such that it would serve God better. Why did the Romans who didn't care about a Jewish religious dispute have him executed? For defiance to the state, "as the King of the Jews". The state would not tolerate the claims of Jesus. They did not execute him for heresy.

Now, what Aquinas is arguing is that the Church does not have the authority to execute anyone. This is crucial. Only the secular authorities, it is up to them to decide.

And Aquinus doesn't say let the secular authorities do with that person as they wish, but says, they will turn him over to the secular tribunal TO BE EXTERMINATED - the death is already presupposed due to the person's heresy. Just he doesn't want churchmen getting their hands dirty.

If the death is already presupposed, then why doesn't the Church execute themselves? Because that is not their lawful role, either before Christ, or before the state. The state, and the state only has the authority, even Aquinas acknowledges this. The only way for such a sentence to be carried out is to deliver the person to the authorities.

This in effect is why Luther sought, secular authority, that would protect him. Which is entirely legitimate. The Church's role was only to decide on the matters within the church, and execution is not one of them.

Now you can argue that execution is contrary to what the Church teaches, and that capital punishment is wrong. I agree with you here. The catechism is pretty clear in arguing that the state does not have the authority to kill someone.

First of all, we must closely examine Thomas' actual words. He is not directly advocating the death penalty for heretics. Rather, he is setting up a conditional: if forgers and the like are executed under the law, then heretics should, with much more justification, be likewise punished. Thomas himself does not directly advocate that forgers should be killed; he is merely describing how they were dealt with within his own society. Forgers are not executed in modern, liberal democracies; we reserve the death penalty for our most heinous murderers. In medieval society, however, many lesser crimes were punishable by death. Heresy, which endangers a person's eternal salvation, surely is a greater evil than forgery. Furthermore, Thomas reserves the execution of heretics to the secular authority. Today, with our total separation of Church and State, the secular authority would have no concern with heretics. Perhaps, medieval society, which was based on the divine right of kings, or England under Henry VIII, would be threatened politically by religious dissenters. Our own society would experience no such threat. Thomas' seeming intolerance to heresy, a matter of faith, is simply irrelevent in a liberal democracy--and, as such, need not stand up to Rawls' criticism.

Here's another take on this issue. Certainly worthy of this discussion.

[Kidlicious]

He justyfied the execution, to echo Imran. Ben you are a very silly person.