Vouthon bhaji, they are wonderful sentiments and very admirable of the church.
What about witch burning though? Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. So there are still some people who the church would rather see dead?
My dear sister Ishna mundahug
A great question!
First of all, this is our position on execution which we categorically oppose even for serial killers:
"...I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary, that there no longer be recourse to capital punishment, given that states today have the means to efficaciously control crime, without definitively taking away an offender's possibility to redeem himself. Our model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message. The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will acclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform...The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity..."
- Pope John Paul II, 1999
The most famous victim of witch-burning was the Catholic
Saint Joan of Arc kudihugNaturally we are "on her side" rather than her executors, which is why she was canonised and they weren't.
I asure you that the Catholic Church would rather see no one dead - she even is opposed to capital punishment for serial killers let alone anyone else.
The verse "
thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is from the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament, and it was delivered to the ancient Jews in the context of witches and augurs of the Caananite nations who passed their child through fire to sacrifice them to a God called Molech. When it speak of witchcraft it is talking about these specific pagan practices such as passing children through fire to cast mythical spells and offering them to gods that don't exist in the context of the quote from Exodus/Deuteronomy about augurs, which took place over 1,000 years before Christ.
The canonical penalty of preventing a Catholic from receiving the sacraments for a period of time so as to hit home the gravity of the crime which has taken place - abortion, infanticide or passing children through fire- was what the Catholic Church imposed for this crime.
The Book of Exodus describes how pagan witches and shamens would send children through fire in mystical rituals in a form of child sacrifice that was practiced as late as Roman times in some places.
In the Torah Moses said that the death penalty should be given for witches and shamens that passed their children through fire, however the Early Christians believed that the death penalty was illegal - that no life could be taken away. So they suggested imposed a merely canonical penalty for this crime, not being able to partake of the sacraments.
So Moses outlawed this practice and, yes, he did ordained 3,000 years ago that any person who practised such "witchcraft" - the specific act of passing a child through fire as a sacrifice to the gods - should be executed. 3,000 years ago, that was considered to be an acceptable punishment for burning to death one's own child in a magical incantation. Some even support capital punishment even now.
However from the earliest days the church has opposed the death penalty. Christ overturned these Jewish laws. They don't form part of the New Testament or of Catholicism.
A cursory glance at some of the Fathers confirms this opposition to the death penalty:
“...We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly. We, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put a man to death [by [capital punishment]?...”
– Saint Athenagoras of Athens (aprox 180 AD), Catholic Church Father, A Plea for the Christians 35
"...When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal...”
– Lactantius, Catholic Church Father (aprox 240-317 AD), Divine Institutes 6.20
"...During the first few centuries after Jesus' execution, Christians were instructed to not participate in the execution of a criminal, to not attend public executions, and even to not lay a charge against a person if it might possibly eventually result in their execution. Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr and other Christian writers who discussed capital punishment during the first three centuries after Jesus' execution were absolutely opposed to it..."
- VIEWS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY
...So as you can see the Church Fathers were clearly opposed to Capital Punishment. Church fathers such as Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr asserted that the taking of human life is incompatible with the gospel and exhorted Christians not to participate in capital punishment.
Sadly from the 5th century onward, the church's opposition to the death penalty declined - after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire under Theodsius - since it got wrapped up in the affairs of state, and so capital punishment was recognized as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent.
Many thought the Catholic teaching against capital punishment was too "idealistic". You see in the Ancient World there weren't the mechanisms to imprison criminals that we have now.
St Augustine was the first to propagate this view, but in doing so he broke with the established Church Tradition prior to this. Augustine's view was an inovation.
However the Church later returned to its "roots" and re-affirmed the consistent doctrine of the Fathers, which opposed unequivocally the death penalty.
Now, onto the actual witch-burning aspect.
This was all part of the Medeival
Inquisition. Allow me to explain about it a little:
Prior to the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church did not allow states to suppress 'heresy' or witchcraft or whatever using intimidation or execution. Such punishments too many ecclesiastical opponents, so such a system did not exist in Catholic theology. To provide you with an example, in 350 the first execution for heresy took place (it was orchestrated by secular authorities) but the decision to execute the person was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, by the Pope, St Ambrose and St Martin of Tours. Christians believed that you could not force somebody to change their mind. God had given them freewill after all - so if they wanted to be a witch or whatever, then that was their choice. To elucidate the viewpoint of this period, John Chrysostom (d407) one of the greatest of the Church Fathers wrote, "
To kill a heretic is to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime".
This mindset persisted well into and after the age of Muhammad. While in the Islamic world in the later half of the First Millenium men like Al-Hallaj were being tortured and executed for being Sufis, for committing 'heresy' under the Abbassid Caliphate, the Christian World was at that time far more morally advanced. In 827, an order to secure the loyalty of his administration, al-Ma'mun instituted the Mihna, the Islamic inquisition. If anyone left Islam they were executed, as demanded by the Sharia Law of the Hadiths. Islam had become corrupted by this time and still is in many respects to this day.
Punishment for heresy in Europe was unknown until after the 12th century, when religious fervour was on the rise. The Church sought to dispel heresy, such as the Albigensians and Waldenses, using passive, non-violent means. These sects arose in the 12th century amongst Catholics who were rejecting teachings of their faith and opting for dualistic gnostic belief systems. For example, St Francis of Assisi and many others used evangelical poverty and preaching, to try and show groups such as Albigensians - who believed that the material world was ruled by an evil God, that there were thus two Gods and not one - through example and not co-ercion. The Church tried to combat heresies through legislation and by sending preachers to teach them.
Regrettably in the 12th century, to counter the spread of Catharism which was tearing apart the Kingdoms of Europe and causing rebellions against the kings, prosecution of heretics by secular governments became more frequent. You see it was a political thing. Religions united Empires, and kings wanted to keep that unity and power over the massess.
Peter Cantor, the most learned man of this age, expressed the prevailing sentiment within the Church leadership, when he told the secular authorities on behalf of the Church: “
Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death’” (De investigatione Antichrist 3:42).
St. Bernard put down the law, in direct opposition to the mobs, “Fides suadenda, non imponenda.” Men are to be won to the Faith, not by violence, but by persuasion. He censured the princes, arguing that “the obstinate were to be excommunicated and if necessary, kept in confinement for the safety of others” (O’Brien, p. 15). The views of Peter Cantor and St. Bernard were ratified by a whole series of synods during that time: Rheims (1049) under Leo IX, Tolouse (1119) under Callistus II, and the Lateran Council of 1139. The execution of heretics or witches etc. during this period must be considered the arbitrary action of secular rulers and the fanatical mob violence. They were not the result of Church law or authority.
In violation of Catholic teachings, some worldly, evil Bishops handed people convicted of heresy and what-not over too the state, knowing all too well that the state would probably have them executed.
This was a terrible crime, and in modern times, Pope John Paul II apologised for these terrible actions of simply bad individuals. He said:
“An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.”
—Pope John Paul II
So he made no excuses, and neither do I.
However they are not to do with Catholic teachings, which have always been strictly "pro-life".
It was all about kings consolidating their Empires and stamping out dissent under a veneer of "defending religion" and co-operating with evil Bishops whom they had bribed to support them. For example, in the most infamous case of all, 19 year old warrior-saint Joan of Arc was captured and tried by a Tribunal of Bishops who were
under the authority of and woking for the English invaders, her enemies, who had been conquering France.
And then these Bishops handed her over to the English to be burned at the stake and the heroine of France died screaming, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!" as the flames burned her to death.
Her trial was a complete political act and a miscarriage of justice. 20 years later the Pope beatified her and her executors were condemned for this despicable misuse of authority.
She became Saint Joan of Arc and a symbol of all who had stood up against this corrupt authority.
The Inquisition has been terribly exaggerated, according to historians such as Rodney Stark and many others whose findings I will relate too you now.
The facts are quite different. Between 1249 and 1257 the Medeival Inquisition sentenced 230 people to prison and only 21 people were given over to the secular authorities and sentenced to death by them (which is still evil of these Bishops to send innocent people over to an almost certain death). This means that throughout the whole of Europe during the eight year period when the Inquisition reached its height, less than 3 people a year were killed. 90% of the sentences were Church-related penances: fasting, pilgrimage, increased mass attendance etc.
The number of those given over to secular authorities and put to death was very small indeed. Of every hunded people convicted, something like 1 person was executed and 10 were sent to prison.
Abuses of the Inquisition did however take place, most key in the trial of Joan of Arc who later became a Catholic Saint. Conrad of Marburg was a sadist who was notoriously cruel and was eventually murdered by his own populace. In one horrendous miscarriage of justice Robert the Bruge sentenced 180 people to death, including the town's Bishop on charges of heresy. The Church was outraged! His own Dominican order suspended him and then sentenced him to a life imprisonment for executing people without reasonable justification. Believe or not, modern scholars actually think that the Medeival Inquisition was a considerable advancement in the humanitarian treatment of criminals. Manuals, for the first time in history, were produced by the Church to guide judges in their investigations and these provided suspects with a measure of legal recourse, which may help to explain why such little executions as time went on actually occurred.
If you would like me I can happily direct you too historical sources that explain all this in greater depth than myself above.
