On that rather inadequate medium, Twitter, I found myself in discussion with a new commentator here, Br Alexis Bugnolo, on the issue of burning people alive. Quoting Leviticus 20:14, he argued that this showed that Jesus must approve of people being burned alive because the moral precepts of Moses, being part of the Law, are upheld by him. This seemed, and on reflections still seems, to me to confuse means and ends. That, at least, seems to be the conclusion to be drawn from the teaching of the Church on the death penalty. The Church permits it because we are a fallen race in a fallen world. In times and places where letting a dangerous killer live would pose a danger to the innocent, then, regrettable as it is, the death penalty is necessary; the execution should do what the killer never did, that is recognise the sanctity of human life, and it is the State’s duty to execute as humanely as can be contrived. All of this is set out in admirable clarity by St Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, where the sainted Pope addresses the question long begged, of how a Church which recognises all human life as sacred, and therefore opposes abortion and euthanasia, can support the State-sponsored execution of people.
Does that mean that I think those Popes and other Catholics who advocated the burning of heretics were wrong? Wrong by what standard? At the time, that was what men did – as Byron put it, sincerely convinced that all the Apostles would have done as they did. As so often, the Church went with the times. As so often when it does, the results were not good ones. Even within its own terms, the policy of burning people failed. All Phillip and Mary did was to encourage their opponents to be even bloodier when they gained the upper hand; far more Catholics than Protestants were killed in this grisly fashion. Blood begat blood, and an eye for an eye made the world blind. But neither Protestantism nor Catholicism was extirpated from this land. In the longer term, both sides have left a legacy which has allowed generations of secularists to excoriate Christianity as a religion which thinks that burning people is God’s will.
So, the Law certainly prescribes the death penalty, but the Church is at liberty to do two things it seems: the first is to limit its incidence; and the second is to modify the means by which the sentence should be carried out. Br Alexis pointed out that in Matthew’s Gospel we are told that those the king rejects go into the fires for eternity. This is true, but is that a reason we should imitate Satan and set fire to people whilst they are alive?
But should we read the passages about ‘fire’ literally? Some do, indeed, insist on it, and they may, of course be correct; but is the balance right here? Has anyone been brought to the love of Christ by being told that unless they love Him they will burn in Hell? It is precisely this scenario which supports, and will continue to foster, the Dawkinsites. It posits, if you think about it, God as a cosmic bully who commands obedience against the threat of eternal torture; hence Dawkins’ characterisation of God as an abusive father.
That is not, I think, an unfair view. It fails to explain, for example, why such a God chose the method He did for our redemption? If a threat of Hell-fire would do it, then surely all that would have been necessary was the revelation it was so; why the Incarnation? Why did God have to die on the Cross and be resurrected? Does that make me a universalist? No, and for those who want to know why, I commend some earlier posts here and here, as well as an excellent post by Rob on the subject of hell, here.
The best account, of course, is that offered by the Catholic Church in its catechism, here. In its infinite wisdom, the Church points out the true nature of hell, which is not what sinful man dwells upon, with his portrayal of it as a place of fire and pain, but rather this:
The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
Bosco the Great said:
The local bishop would acquire the land of the heretic after killing them. It just so happened that it was the choicest lands. Ever wonder why the CC is so rich?
But we, the body of Christ are called to be harmless as doves.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Most heretics in England were landless, Bosco. Nice try, but no coconut!
LikeLike
dillydilys said:
And people with large estates were much more likely to suffer a trumped up charge of treason, and have them confiscated by the reigning monarch, who would pass them on to a new crony.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, but in the Bosco view of history, only the Church does bad things.
A happy new year to you, Dillys.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
nO NEED TO ACCUSE ME FALSELY. everybody WAS OUT DOING EVIL. The CC was just another evil institution amongst many. The church that changes not hasn’t changed.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
All human things change, Bosco.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The catholic church changes not. Its not human. Its led by the holy ghost.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think you need to be a bit more specific here. Of course things change.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Some pope or father pronounced that the church changes not. I figured you of all people would know who said it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, as usual, no real source or context. What does not change is that the Church was founded by Christ.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Ok. There is still the rest of the continent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed, Christ has brought into play the concepts of Love and Mercy when applying or judging those whose crimes are worthy of death. After all, those of us without sin might might then be worthy to enact such punishments – but alas, it is God Himself that has no stain of sin.
On another subject, I found this article on theology rather interesting though dry for those that have no interest in Thomism and Neomodernism etc. It does deliver a very good overview, I think, from the philosophic and theologic changes that have occurred within the Church in the last century. If you read it, let me know your thoughts.
The article is here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-christmastide-gift-for-our-readers.html#more
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A very interesting piece. I don’t know enough about the subject to make any detailed comments, but the general line seems sound to me.
A Happy New Year to you, my friend 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
And to you C. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
Once we ignore that the “factorem caeli et terrae” God is a rational God, then we can make anything up. And Bergoglio and Dawkins are not really that far apart. One could even say that they are “soulmates”.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Though I am no fan of this Pope and an enemy of Dawkins I do not see the two as cut from the same cloth. I cannot know such anyway as I am not a ‘reader’ of souls as say, a St. Padre Pio. But aside from that, I do not understand the point of your comment either. Of course God is a rational God and our Faith is Rational as well.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
My point is that both Dawkins and Bergoglio do not believe in a rational God. Both of them need a creator that they can use to fit the argument that they are trying to make at any given time. Dawkins constructs his “god” as a cosmic bully and Francis constructs his as the “god of surprises”.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
From Bergoglio’s habit of saying silly things I would have a hard time trying to categorize him as to his personal belief and faith – that is not known to me. If you read the link that I left for C over at Rorate, I think it shines some light on the theological ideas the Pope was raised with through seminary and through the teachings of his order. I would categorize, as did the author this theology as neo-modernism and I will leave his personal faith to God.
If you were somehow thinking that I perhaps also hold to such a theology, you would be wrong. My theologian of choice is Garrigou-LaGrange and of course my theology is Thomistic. That is why I wondered about your reply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
Dear Servus:
That which you term “Bergoglio’s habit of saying silly things”, is actually what he sees as his magisterium. For proof, please read his La Nacion interview. Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-new-papal-interview.html.
As to judging his beliefs or anybody else for that matter, I do none of that. What I do is read his words and allow the chips to fall where they may. Reading Francis through Benedict has been a failed methodology. It’s last practitioner has given up a while back. ( http://wdtprs.com/blog/) If you recall the old banner, then the banner says it all.
As for Thomism, the sooner we return the better. But at the end of the day, it’s just a matter of time.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed I read Rorate daily and Fr. Z and the Remnant as well. I am very worried by this Pope and what he seems to be saying. That said, it is not beyond the power of God to use this man for good. It may be that the ‘coming out’ of these opposing theologies was just what needed to happen. God knows, they have been festering behind the smiles for a very long time now. Christ’s Church will win the battle and perhaps only a remnant will remain. I can live with that and I might be able to even thank Bergoglio for getting the battle out in public. In the meanwhile, I pray for the Pope as I do all the Pope’s. The Will of God will be done in the end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
S. Armaticus said:
Dear Servus:
I share your sentiments exactly.
I am no “instrument” of divine will nor do I claim to know what He intends, however I am beginning to see Bergoglio as a Godsend. He is tearing the facade off the Modernist heresy for all to see. And all are seeing it.
Furthermore, the entire Church is getting a lesson in how important the notion of “objective Truth” is as the foundation of a coherent theology. Furthermore, I think it will be a long time before anyone uses a term like the “god of surprises” after this papacy comes to conclusion.
And yes, I pray for the man. I pray that he converts, if their is a need for that. And I hope that he goes quickly, but only when the Holy Spirit is through.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed, God can draw straight with crooked lines as they say.
LikeLike
zeke70 said:
It is my experience that conversion of heat is a profound surprise from God, and thoroughly transformative. Faith is living and supple. I think this is the meaning of the Pope’s words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
zeke70 said:
Heart, not heat.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Say, good brother Armaticus, you better not say anything bad about the Holy Father. Quiav the Great might notify your local inquisitor. And you know what that means. Off with your head….if youre lucky.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
I prefer to be burned at the stake.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Im sure the CC can manage that. They are expert in that area.
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
They have lost their form. Long time since they actually tried. Although, I am watching the unfolding situation with the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Me thinks it is only a question of time. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
William Ockham said:
A full discussion on the death penalty is beyond the scope of a mere comment. However, while St. John Paul II did state that the circumstances that permit for the death penalty are “practically non-existent”, I wish he would have spent more time on the history of the death penalty and the evolution to the current state of affairs as to why it is no longer necessary.
On the concept of “hell”, as you state, the CCC provides the best description; essentially hell is an self-exile. Joseph Ratzinger elaborated on this concept in his classic work “Introduction to Christianity”:
“The fear peculiar to man cannot be overcome by reason but only by the presence of someone who loves him. We must examine our question still further. If there were such a thing as a loneliness that could no longer be penetrated and transformed by the word of another; if a state of abandonment were to arise that was so deep that no “You” could reach into it any more, then we should have real, total loneliness and dreadfulness, what theology calls “hell”.
We can now define exactly what this word means: it denotes a loneliness that the word love can no longer penetrate and that therefore indicates the exposed nature of existence in itself. In this connection who can fail to remember that writers and philosophers of our time take the view that basically all encounters between human beings remain superficial, that no man has access to the real depths of another? According to this view, no one can really penetrate into the innermost being of someone else; every encounter, beautiful as it may seem, basically only dulls the incurable wound of loneliness. Thus hell, despair, would dwell at the very bottom of our existence, in the shape of that loneliness which is as inescapable as it is dreadful.”
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal; Pope Benedict XVI; Benedict (2010-06-04). Introduction To Christianity, 2nd Edition (Communio Books) (Kindle Locations 3667-3675). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That is a splendid quotation from Pope Benedict, and expresses, as ever, just what we need to know.
On the DP, I think St John Paul was expressing much that has always been implicit, but had not been made explicit.
LikeLike
Rudy Carrera said:
Wonderful writing, as usual. I also agree with you regarding Twitter. It is a very useful app if you want to show people a link. It’s among the most horrible tools to use in terms of communicating in a lengthy manner. Thankfully, this blog allows for a better way of discussing these matters. A splendid 2015 to you all (yes, even to you, Bosco).
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Many thanks, Rudy, and all best wishes for 2015.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Well, that’s mighty white of you good brother Rudy. happy new year to you.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
“At the time, that was what men did – as Byron put it, sincerely convinced that all the Apostles would have done as they did.”
How could the leaders , church fathers, possibly think such behavior would be sanctioned by Christ? Apparently they did. Then create doctrine with such contaminated notions. How could secular leaders , alleged protectors of the faith feel that “this is what men did” be congruent with the spirit of Christ?
How could they think that all the martyrs who perished without resistance would advocate such conduct? That the very Apostles would condone such? It makes me conclude that if this was the case then the early RCC had no business claiming that its orthodoxy is based on Apostolic tradition and legitimate. These were the type of men that declared others heretics-astonishing.
“the Church went with the times”
Then RCC certainly was not Christ’s church. His church is pure and not subservient or submissive to the machinations of men , their demands or their contrived pronouncements that such was conduct was sanctioned. This means the RCC compromised the faith. Innocent III went with the times,manipulated the times using the same sword as would Mohammed who claimed to be God’s prophet. That pope and others conducted themselves as Caesars not Keepers of the Keys.
“In its infinite wisdom, the Church points out the true nature of hell…”
Seems to me they designed one here under their mistaken notion that they carried the banner of Christ’ They carried the banner of Satan – no Apostolic tradition here.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The burning was based on passages in Leviticus, and indeed, there are still, I am sad to say, those who would still advocate it.
Men are sinners Carl, and putting a clerical collar on them does. Ot change that.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
Apparently many of those who wear that clerical collar think they have the authority to self decide their righteousness and correctness which in their minds makes non conformists sinners and heretics if not in agreement. Rigid lay adherents of particular orthodoxies also think they have the elite God given certainties as well as shown in discussions here. On the other hand foundations and pillars of truth from which to draw guidelines are to be developed. We can pray that endeavors in earnest approach those truths.
I think much of our standards esp on war and punishment are drawn from OT examples. It seems the history and actions and claims of direction from God by ancient Hebrews/Israelites are not models for modern thinking (that’s the way things were done). OT examples are largely inconsistent with essence of Christian understanding and would never design a legal or moral system based on the thinking of ancient cultures except of course example of Christ. Of course this is not to say there is indeed wisdom upon which we may draw conclusions and applications such as 10 Commandments, Magna Charta, Dec of Ind, rights of man, Greek and Romans moralists.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am with you all the way, Carl, which is no doubt why Brother Alexis blew a gasket or two, He is welcome to live in the Middle Ages.
LikeLike