Heart and Feser seem to be oblivious of a papal pronouncement which bears directly on this issue: proposition 33 of Pope Leo X's 1520 bull "Exsurge Domine".

In English:

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

In latin:

XXXIII. Haereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritûs.
[...]
De eorundem itaque venerabilium fratrum nostrorum consilio et assensu, se omnium et singulorum praedictorum maturâ deliberatione praedicta, auctoritate omnipotentis Dei, et beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, et nostra, praefatos omnes et singulos articulos seu errores, tanquam (ut praemittitur) respective haereticos, aut scandalosos, aut falsos, aut piarum aurium offensivos, vel simplicium mentium seductivos, et veritate Catholicae obviantes, damnamus, reprobamus, ac omnino rejicimus, ac pro damnatis, reprobatis, et rejectis ab omnibus utriusque sexûs Christi fidelibus haberi debere, harum serie decernimus et declaramus.

Notes:

1. The emphasized clause on authority seems to point to a definitive pronouncement.
2. While "heretical", "scandalous", "false", "offensive to pious ears" are connected by "aut" and "seductive of simple minds" by "vel", "against Catholic truth" is connected by "and".

While the extent of the condemned proposition is indeterminate, it is clear that its correct understanding is in the broad sense:

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

Thus, a Catholic must hold the contradictory proposition to 33b, which I will call 67r (from "restrictive" and 100 - 33 = 67):

67r: That heretics be burned is not always against the will of the Spirit.
= That heretics be burned is sometimes not against the will of the Spirit.

Sources:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
http://www.efg-hohenstaufenstr.de/downloads/texte/exsurge_domine.html

Last edited by Johannes (12/20/2017 4:51 pm)

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

In his latest response Hart seems even more to take a position that I would rather clumsily call quasi-Gnostic or Manichean. He seems to be suggesting that Christian moral principles could lead, when properly and prudentially followed, to a completely unworkable social system (he himself seems to suggest it may well be so, although it hasn't been properly tried).

Early Christianity was a persecuted underground movement. This is among the points that makes Hart (and me) emphasize that Christianity has no (as in absolutely none whatsoever) business with state administration and no ambition for it. NT fully bears this out.

Quoting Hart, "In any event, it really is not very difficult to follow the story here. The very earliest Christian documents that address the question of the death penalty treat it as a practice wholly forbidden for Christians. This is not open to debate; the evidence is clear and overwhelming. Even the one Church Father from the first three centuries who professes to find some moral value in capital punishment in some extreme cases, Clement of Alexandria, does so in a text written for pagan readers, and not as a prescription for Christian practice..."

Is this what you call quasi-Gnostic or Manichean? And you have no problem with straightforward secular features of Catholicism, down to meting out capital punishment itself?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Also, and I am no expert on patristics, but don't some of the early Father's, going back to at least Justin, argue that Christian can be legitimate subjects of the empire, against pagan slanders?

Maybe subjects, but not officials (magistrates). There is a difference.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Hart might be claiming his version of radical pacifistic anarchism better reflects what is depicted in Acts, but. I don't think it is in intune with the Fathers, at least from the Apologists onwards. This might be a legitimate position for a Protestant to take, but would be hard for a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

Which Apologist from what time saying what do you have in mind?

Quoting Hart, "Feser and Bessette may see here a development of Christian self-understanding, just where I see the start of a slow drift away from the teachings of the apostolic communities. What to them may look like an emerging clarity may look to me like a deepening confusion. As one pleases."

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

In his latest response Hart seems even more to take a position that I would rather clumsily call quasi-Gnostic or Manichean. He seems to be suggesting that Christian moral principles could lead, when properly and prudentially followed, to a completely unworkable social system (he himself seems to suggest it may well be so, although it hasn't been properly tried).

I admire this. Far too many ethical accounts, even theistic ethical accounts, allow appeals to a grander civic morality or common good to determine basic moral principles. Justice though the the world may burn.

My main problem with Hart's account is that he's willing to grant there are contradictory ethical imperatives. If the kind of natural law based morality Feser endorses is correct then God cannot invalidate or go against it - if such an account is wrong though Hart ought to say a little more about how a correct account would function (and that means working one out without appeal to Christian revelation).

Ironically I think Hart actually conceded Feser's main point i.e. that the death penalty is not de facto wrong and thus the Church has not been guilty of endorsing a contradiction. The quote I had in mind was:

<i>'Hence the modern Catholic Church’s refusal to allow for any possible just application of capital punishment except in those vanishingly rare (or possibly nonexistent) cases when it is the only way to save the lives of others'</i>

What will annoy Feser though is the refusal to allow the use of the death penalty to be determined by appeals to Bentham's Belly.

Last edited by DanielCC (12/22/2017 10:29 am)

DanielCC wrote:

Ironically I think Hart actually conceded Feser's main point i.e. that the death penalty is not de facto wrong and thus the Church has not been guilty of endorsing a contradiction.

Yes, Hart conceded Feser's point, insofar as Feser's point is that there is a Catholic defense of capital punishment. But there is nothing ironic about it. Hart conceded it already in the first review and this went along with the unstated premise that Catholicism is not (proper) Christianity. Instead, Hart is addressing a larger issue.

Hart is not attacking Feser's proposition that Catholics can legitimately support capital punishment, that the popes have done so, etc. Hart is attacking the idea that there is anything Christian or scriptural about it and that there's support for it in patristic sources. By now Feser has understood this, claims victory and dismisses Hart's review as full of bile and straw men and rhetorical tricks.

This is most unfortunate, because Feser, seeing already the first time that Hart seems to be talking somewhat past the point, should have considered if there is a different point that Hart has in mind, and if the different point is worth addressing, then address that different point. Otherwise Hart's review is not actually a review and not worth addressing, as simple as that. In my view, however, it is very much worth discussing if Catholicism represents Christianity and, if so, to what extent, even though Feser has not yet written a book about it.

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

@seigneur

For now I am willing to tolerate your neglect of what is, for all you seem to know, a scriptural binding prescription.

Binding prescription for whom?

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

I can for the sake of argument grant you the first bit. What allows you to convert this description into a binding norm?

Binding norm for whom?

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

The NT, considered as a historical source, does not treat this as normative, at least not too clearly, nor do the Fathers conscripted by Hart and Feser.

Normative for whom?

Don't you see that you are neglecting something crucial here? You are speaking in half-sentences.

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

So how precisely do you obtain this conversion, and hence at least some of the criteria you think are useful in assessing Christianness?

The meaning of your question depends on what you have left unanswered above.

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

One other thing: I think that the state, on the hypothetical "pure nature" divine economy, would also be the highest legal authority in matters concerning the exercise of the virtue of religion (and here most cultures in the world seem to agree). Would you deny even the -negative- prescription addressed to the prince by Christianity? Or do you think the state must also establish natural religion?

I have said before and I say again: The state, by virtue of being secular, can do anything. There is no necessity to any particular state action or inaction. In the secular world, everything is possible with the corresponding consequences, good and evil.

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

Also, I have to repeat (or rather make explicit) my question: do you think that all people have a duty to profess Christianity (qua the true religion)? If not, why, given that it's true?

Spell out your stance properly: You want to dictate each and every soul their religion.

My stance: No. For many reasons. For one, "true" has many meanings, particularly in "true religion". For another, "true religion", whatever it means, becomes false religiosity when it's forced on people. It's false religiosity even when it's a "naturally" inherited cultural ballast.

GeorgiusThomas wrote:

This is where the conflict is: under natural law, the common good of civil society is a great concern, so grave in fact, that you should be prepared to die and kill for it, not to mention the practical need for an ordered public life, its utility for survival, education, growth in knowledge and virtue etc.

No, that's not where the conflict is. Both Christians and non-Christians alike can be in harmony with natural law. This is not what makes Christians special, it's not what makes NT special as the scripture for Christians. Non-Christians can be "good" in terms of natural law without NT.

The conflict is in the contention that natural law, knowledge of it and compliance to it, is somehow a Christian privilege or special to Christians. It isn't.

In the secular world, there are both good people (e.g. Good Samaritan) and the bad in terms of natural law, but there are no holy people. Only Christians are holy - not of this world.