FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   >>  
eness." Their doctrine certainly accorded perfectly with our Saviour's teaching, in the parable of the cockle and the good grain. As Wazo, Bishop of Liege said: "May not those who are to-day cockle become wheat to-morrow?"[1] But in decreeing the death of these sinners, the Inquisitors at once did away with the possibility of their conversion. Certainly this was not in accordance with Christian charity. Such severity can only be defended by the authority of the Old Law, whose severity, according to the early Fathers, had been abolished by the law of Christ.[2] [1] _Vita Vasonis_, cap. xxv, in Migne, P.L., vol. cxlii, col. 753. [2] St. Optatus (_De Schismate Donatistarum_, lib. iii, cap. vi and vii) was one of the first of the Fathers to quote the Old Testament as his authority for the infliction of the death penalty upon heretics. But in this he was not followed either by his contemporaries or his immediate successors. Before him, Origen and St. Cyprian had protested against this appeal to the Mosaic law. Advocates of the death penalty, like Frederic II and St. Thomas, tried to defend their view by arguments from reason. Criminals guilty of treason, and counterfeiters are condemned to death. Therefore, heretics who are traitors and falsifiers merit the same penalty. But a comparison of this kind is not necessarily a valid argument. The criminals in question were a grave menace to the social order. But we cannot say as much for each and every heresy in itself. It was unjust to place a crime against society and a sin against God on an equal footing. Such reasoning would prove that all sins were crimes of treason against God, and therefore merited death.[1] Is not a sacrilegious communion the worst possible insult to the divine majesty? Must we argue, therefore, that every unworthy communicant, if unrepentant, must be sent to the stake? [1] Mgr. Bonomelli, Bishop of Cremona, writes: "In the Middle Ages, they reasoned thus: If rebellion against the prince deserves death, _a fortiori_ does rebellion against God. Singular logic! It is not very hard to put one's finger upon the utter absurdity of such reasoning. For every sinner is a rebel against God's law. It follows then that we ought to condemn all men to death, beginning with the kings and the legislators;" quoted by Morlais in the _Revue du Clerge Francais_, August 1, 1905, p. 457. It is evident, therefore, that neither reason, Christian tradition nor the New
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   >>  



Top keywords:

penalty

 

heretics

 

rebellion

 
authority
 

reasoning

 

Christian

 

severity

 

Fathers

 
Bishop
 

treason


cockle

 
reason
 

insult

 
majesty
 

divine

 

merited

 

sacrilegious

 
crimes
 

communion

 

social


menace

 
criminals
 

question

 

heresy

 

footing

 

unjust

 
society
 

condemn

 
beginning
 

quoted


legislators

 

sinner

 

Morlais

 

evident

 
tradition
 
Clerge
 
Francais
 

August

 

absurdity

 

Cremona


Bonomelli

 

writes

 
argument
 

Middle

 

communicant

 

unrepentant

 
reasoned
 

finger

 

Singular

 

prince