Medieval Punishment for Heresy?

Hi,

I wonder about how the church viewed punishment for heresy during the Middle Ages? Why did he church accept burning heretics at the stake? Or was this punishment solely something from the secular powers hat had no support among Christians?

I wonder what the theological justifications were for such a punishment?

I don’t know much about the subject, but I know that persecution for heresy was practiced by various religions - for example, the Puritans persecuted the Quakers. I’ll be interested in the responses in this thread - it’s a fascinating subject.

An important thing to keep in mind is that it was not the Church carrying out these punishments, it was the civil authorities. During the Middle Ages, a nation’s religious affinity was a core aspect of the nation’s identity. We see something of a parallel in Muslim nations today, with a significant distinction being that the Bible did not define national laws, whereas the Quran does.

When heresies popped up, they were considered a threat to national order, and were dealt with accordingly; much in the same way theft or murder is handled by the courts today. Even the ‘infamous’ Inquisitors operated through the offices of the national leadership, though also through the direct permission of the Church. Incidentally, rather than the blood-thirsty torturers and persecutors depicted in modern fables, the Inquisitors placed limits on practices which were common in the day, specifically, on the use of torture as a means of obtaining a confession. There are records of people who, when accused of a civil crime, would commit an act of blasphemy so that they would be tried by the Inquisitorial court instead of the secular court. This was because the inquisitors only used torture in very specific cases, and only within prescribed bounds, whereas the civil courts of the time saw torture as the primary means of interrogation, and did not generally place limitations on the type or duration of torture used.

So, were there burning in the name of Christendom? Certainly. Was is the Church doing them? Nope. It was the national authorities, who saw heresies as a threat to civil order, and a direct affront to the authority of the nation’s leadership.

As for the Church’s views on it, I’m not really aware of any specific statements outside of the belief that a civil authority has the right to exercise the death penalty when the situation calls for it. The question of its necessity or propriety in these instances is certainly up for debate, but one must always remember the social and political realities of a time when discussing history.

And of course let’s be honest about it. While we should not bow to the widespread “knowledge” that the Church murdered millions of people (relatively few suffered capital punishment during the periods of the Inquisitions).

But in answer to the original question, the Church had no moral qualms about handing obstinate/relapsed heretics over to the civil authorities for capital punishment, after all, it was ecclesiastical courts who did this, albeit it was typically done with a plea for mercy added. It was considered a just punishment for heresy at the time, in the civil sphere.

I honestly don’t know either way. I know that it did happen, but are there any documents which discuss the Church’s views on the use of capital punishment at the time?

(I’m not doubting you, Heresy was taken a lot more seriously back then than it is now. Considering how serious an issue it is, I’m a little sad that we don’t take it more seriously today…)

Capital punishment has historically been accepted as morally acceptable by the Catholic Church, and the Church has always recognized this power as being properly wielded by the civil authority.

While the documents are out there for the various cases, I’m sure, we don’t need them to draw the conclusion that it was acceptable to the Church that heretics be executed if unrepentant and a danger to society. The Church was not a bloodthirsty monster, and as you mentioned, was extremely reluctant to apply torture or hand over a heretic to the state for punishment.

But if it was done, it was done by the Church’s own courts, which reflects the Church’s mind on the matter. It was morally acceptable.

And in no uncertain terms, this is summed up in the Papal bull Exsurge:

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows [note: the following propositions in the document are ERRORS and therefore condemned.]

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

It’s a little difficult to wrap one’s head around the document because of all the double-negatives, but it can be deciphered.

Oh, I know it’s be accepted, but there’s a difference between accepting it and actively promoting it or desiring it. While the Church did hand heretics over to the civil authorities, that does not necessarily indicate a desire on their part for capital punishment to be used, even though it was considered acceptable.

Also, when you say it was done by the Church’s courts, you are specifically referring to the determination of if a person was heretical, right? I don’t believe there’s a single historical instance of the Church prescribing the death penalty.

Right. It was a last resort, so to speak.

Also, when you say it was done by the Church’s courts, you are specifically referring to the determination of if a person was heretical, right? I don’t believe there’s a single historical instance of the Church prescribing the death penalty.

Right. The Church had (and still has) its own courts. They were known to be more lenient than the civil courts which is why you correctly cite the intentional blaspheming so that civil suspects can be transferred to the ecclesiastical courts. Heresy was both an ecclesiastical and civil crime, and the Church’s courts were the ones who imposed a guilty verdict, after an ecclesiastical trial.

The Church’s legal system never had the death penalty.

But as in most legal systems, there was/is a quagmire of confusion.

There is, after all, a guillotine in the Vatican Museums. It was used by the Papal States until the reunion of Italy in the 1800s.

ICXC NIKA

Well, it’s not confusing because the Papal States also had their civil statutes. The civil law of the Papal States was distinct from the canon law of the Church, and the Papal States’ civil law did prescribe the death penalty. In fact, the last law prescribing the death penalty for Vatican City remained on the books until it was repealed in 1969.

I’m not sure if the OP is referring to a specific event or series of events. What I’ve heard about heresy is that the church is more concerned about the eternal state of the soul over the state of the temporal body. That said, the church has always favored giving the person in question a chance to clarify their public statements (called an inquisition) and to repent and publicly renounce any determined heresy. If the heretic understand their break with the church teaching and continues to defy that teaching, the church imposes a sentence. As other posters have already commented on, the church does not impose capital punishment though monarchs in the middle ages certainly did execute people they thought were a danger to the monarchy.

Which documents are you referring to?

Leo X’s non-infallible judgment on this made it, at the time, a Church teaching that a heretic could be executed by a terrible death (burning). However, what constituted a heretic? Some heretics preached things against the morals of a State. The Catechism says (2298) “In times past, **cruel practices **were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who **themselves adopted **in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture.” Its rather a weak argument to say that the Church wasn’t doing the killing but rather handed people over the authorities. They didn’t want the blood on their hands, and maybe wanted people to see them as more merciful on torture, when in reality they had the power simply to give you over to their pals in the state departments. At what point is punishment against human dignity? Burning to death was seen as not going to far by Leo X, but maybe it was.

Did the papal bull support capital punishment?

It allowed for it, but did not necessarily support it as the most prudent decision.

I don’t know if its true that the Church’s legal system never had the death penalty. I read a Protestant article once that cited an old Church canon that spoke of killing heretics. I have it saved, but it will take some time to find it…

It’s probably Exsurge.

No it was another one. Exsurge was a fallible teaching. A Church law though I think makes it infallible

Heck no. Church laws are probably the least infallible ever.

Only dogmatic definitions are infallible. Laws are not.

What if the document says:
“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”
Then is it still a fallible pronunciation? Is the restriction against artificial birth control fallible?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.