FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: St. Pope Pius V, and the burning of sexually immoral people at the stake.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
This is something I'd only heard last night.

A few questions for someone who might be familiar with the history on this topic:

1.  Did it matter at all if the person confessed their sin (unnatural vice, etc.), or did that only help them escape Hell?  

2.  In today's Church, what should the attitude be towards sins by which people could previously be put to death?  Should the Church seek to convert the secular authorities to a more serious view of sin?, and also reinstate the death penalty for such sins?

3.  Which sins did St. Pope Pius V punish in this way? Was it ALL sexually immorality?  (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.)
(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]This is something I'd only heard last night.

That's the first problem here.

The first thing to always remember when you hear something shocking is quod gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur (What is freely asserted, is freely denied).

If your interlocutor claims something, it is his burden to demonstrate the truth of that statement.

If you do not have documentary or historical evidence of this, you should consider it suspect until you have some reason to believe this.

The question you ask, then really should be to the person you heard this from, not to a separate group of people, because in asking such you are also freely asserting and assuming the truth of what you heard, and not providing any source or proof for the truth of this.

(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]A few questions for someone who might be familiar with the history on this topic:

1.  Did it matter at all if the person confessed their sin (unnatural vice, etc.), or did that only help them escape Hell?

I don't know. Look at the documentary evidence.

(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]2.  In today's Church, what should the attitude be towards sins by which people could previously be put to death?  Should the Church seek to convert the secular authorities to a more serious view of sin?, and also reinstate the death penalty for such sins?

A completely separate topic, the discussion of which will turn on Prudence and political situations, more than anything else.

Still, the question and relation here seems to assume the veracity of the original claim.

(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]3.  Which sins did St. Pope Pius V punish in this way? Was it ALL sexually immorality?  (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.)

Again, that's the question for the person who claimed this, something of which you should be suspect until you have demonstration of this (which probably solves your questions).
I'm too stupid to understand most of what you said, but I heard this stuff in the following video.  Scroll to 18 mins:

(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]This is something I'd only heard last night.

A few questions for someone who might be familiar with the history on this topic:

1.  Did it matter at all if the person confessed their sin (unnatural vice, etc.), or did that only help them escape Hell?  

2.  In today's Church, what should the attitude be towards sins by which people could previously be put to death?  Should the Church seek to convert the secular authorities to a more serious view of sin?, and also reinstate the death penalty for such sins?

3.  Which sins did St. Pope Pius V punish in this way? Was it ALL sexually immorality?  (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.)

I can only answer for the second question.  The Church teaches that God loves us, that he wants us to love him, and that it is not truly love unless it is freely chosen.  It seems that there is something very fraudulent in proclaiming that God gives us free will to choose good or evil and to then execute those who freely choose what God has permitted them to choose.  The punishment of unrepentant sin is hell, so the only valid reason to execute someone for freely choosing evil is if their choice poses a threat to society.  Since sexual vice is not contagious, particularly regarding homosexuality, at best, executing people for practicing sodomy was misguided due to fearmongering and lack of information, posing a serious doubt in the trustworthiness of the Church's hierarchy, and at worst shows the dishonesty and malice of the Church's hierarchy at various points in history.
(01-08-2018, 08:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]This is something I'd only heard last night.

A few questions for someone who might be familiar with the history on this topic:

1.  Did it matter at all if the person confessed their sin (unnatural vice, etc.), or did that only help them escape Hell?  

2.  In today's Church, what should the attitude be towards sins by which people could previously be put to death?  Should the Church seek to convert the secular authorities to a more serious view of sin?, and also reinstate the death penalty for such sins?

3.  Which sins did St. Pope Pius V punish in this way? Was it ALL sexually immorality?  (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.)

  Since sexual vice is not contagious, particularly regarding homosexuality, at best, executing people for practicing sodomy was misguided due to fearmongering and lack of information, posing a serious doubt in the trustworthiness of the Church's hierarchy, and at worst shows the dishonesty and malice of the Church's hierarchy at various points in history.

Sexual vice is most definitely contagious.
(01-08-2018, 09:02 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 08:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]This is something I'd only heard last night.

A few questions for someone who might be familiar with the history on this topic:

1.  Did it matter at all if the person confessed their sin (unnatural vice, etc.), or did that only help them escape Hell?  

2.  In today's Church, what should the attitude be towards sins by which people could previously be put to death?  Should the Church seek to convert the secular authorities to a more serious view of sin?, and also reinstate the death penalty for such sins?

3.  Which sins did St. Pope Pius V punish in this way? Was it ALL sexually immorality?  (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.)

  Since sexual vice is not contagious, particularly regarding homosexuality, at best, executing people for practicing sodomy was misguided due to fearmongering and lack of information, posing a serious doubt in the trustworthiness of the Church's hierarchy, and at worst shows the dishonesty and malice of the Church's hierarchy at various points in history.

Sexual vice is most definitely contagious.

It would seem many male "gays" are that way due to having been molested by an older man in their youth. In that sense, yes, I agree that's it spreads like a contagion.
(01-08-2018, 09:21 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 09:02 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 08:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]This is something I'd only heard last night.

A few questions for someone who might be familiar with the history on this topic:

1.  Did it matter at all if the person confessed their sin (unnatural vice, etc.), or did that only help them escape Hell?  

2.  In today's Church, what should the attitude be towards sins by which people could previously be put to death?  Should the Church seek to convert the secular authorities to a more serious view of sin?, and also reinstate the death penalty for such sins?

3.  Which sins did St. Pope Pius V punish in this way? Was it ALL sexually immorality?  (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.)

  Since sexual vice is not contagious, particularly regarding homosexuality, at best, executing people for practicing sodomy was misguided due to fearmongering and lack of information, posing a serious doubt in the trustworthiness of the Church's hierarchy, and at worst shows the dishonesty and malice of the Church's hierarchy at various points in history.

Sexual vice is most definitely contagious.

It would seem many male "gays" are that way due to having been molested by an older man in their youth. In that sense, yes, I agree that's it spreads like a contagion.

Sources?  

If it were that contagious, considering the part man/boy relationships made in the past, Greec and Rome should have no progeny today.

Gay men have a penchant for trying to seduce straight men, and they are largely unsuccessful.  Why would adult men be so immune to homsexuality if they're so susceptible to it as adolescents? 

Most boys molested by older men grow up to be heterosexual.
(01-08-2018, 09:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 09:21 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 09:02 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 08:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 07:28 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]This is something I'd only heard last night.

A few questions for someone who might be familiar with the history on this topic:

1.  Did it matter at all if the person confessed their sin (unnatural vice, etc.), or did that only help them escape Hell?  

2.  In today's Church, what should the attitude be towards sins by which people could previously be put to death?  Should the Church seek to convert the secular authorities to a more serious view of sin?, and also reinstate the death penalty for such sins?

3.  Which sins did St. Pope Pius V punish in this way? Was it ALL sexually immorality?  (fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc.)

  Since sexual vice is not contagious, particularly regarding homosexuality, at best, executing people for practicing sodomy was misguided due to fearmongering and lack of information, posing a serious doubt in the trustworthiness of the Church's hierarchy, and at worst shows the dishonesty and malice of the Church's hierarchy at various points in history.

Sexual vice is most definitely contagious.

It would seem many male "gays" are that way due to having been molested by an older man in their youth. In that sense, yes, I agree that's it spreads like a contagion.

Sources?  

If it were that contagious, considering the part man/boy relationships made in the past, Greec and Rome should have no progeny today.

Gay men have a penchant for trying to seduce straight men, and they are largely unsuccessful.  Why would adult men be so immune to homsexuality if they're so susceptible to it as adolescents? 

Most boys molested by older men grow up to be heterosexual.

Sources?

I, like you, have no sources.  I've just heard and seen the account of gays here and there (I've also seen two male family members turn out that way).  It seems it happens usually one of two ways:

1. Childhood molestation.
2. Domineering mother and weak/absent father.

I don't for a second think gays are "born that way".  I think they have a complex psychological condition.  Can it be fixed?  I think so, yes.  I think this push on the "born that way" stuff is from the Cultural Marxist types who want to destroy the family. 

Here's a good site by a Catholic clinical psychologist on the matter:  http://www.chastitysf.com/q_homosexuality.htm
(01-08-2018, 08:30 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm too stupid to understand most of what you said, but I heard this stuff in the following video.  Scroll to 18 mins:


Why are you watching Sedevacantist videos?

The very first thing they discuss—the invalidity of the Novus Ordo ordination rite—is not only bogus, but horrifically poorly argued. Fr. (now supposedly "Bishop") Sanborn, says that "it was exactly the same as what Pius XII said, but they left out one word, and that was 'ut'", calling this an "essential defect" even though it in no way changes the actual meaning of the formula.

In doing that he claims that Pius XII "by his Apostolic authority" determined that "ut" was to be in the formula, but if that's the argument, the Paul VI could say that it was not necessary by the same authority ...

This is not a substantial change, any more than saying, "I'm going home, in order to eat dinner" is substantially different from "I'm going home; I'm going to eat dinner." 

(Even if that sounds somewhat convincing, realize that the ordination formulas both start by saying "grant to they servant the dignity of the priesthood" and "ut" stands between "renew in him the spirit of holiness" "hold the office of second-rank" meaning it used to say "renew in him the spirit ... so that he may hold the office of second-rank" and now says "renew in him the spirit ... may he hold the office of second-rank.")

Fr. Mroczka then jumps in to the rescue, adding an example about Baptism which clearly shows a substantial change in the Baptism formula (substituting "Buddha" for "Holy Ghost"), and suggests this shows why the Novus Ordo ordination is invalid.

This is not worthwhile or good for you to waste you time on.

------------------------------

To the point, however, instead of coming here, an posting the question, a quick Google search, should have turned up the information you were wanting.

Fr. Sanborn said that St. Pius V punished clerics with death penalty for homosexual actions. In that he's not incorrect, but also not entirely accurate. St. Pius V declared that a cleric caught in homosexual activity was to be laicised (and thus stripped of the protection of the Church's tribunals), and handed over to the secular authority who would punish the crime (because it was a crime) with the same penalty as a lay man : which in the Papal States was death.

That bull (Horrendum illud scelus) was easily found, and you could have answered your own question :


Quote:PIUS EPISCOPUS (SANCTUS PIUS Pp. V)

SERVUS SERVORUM DEI

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.

Horrendum illud scelus, quo pollutae foederatae Civitates a tremendo Dei judicio coflagrarunt, acerbissimum Nobis dolorem inurit, graviterque animum nostrum commovet, ut ad illud, quantum potest, comprimendum, studia nostra conferamus.

#1. Sane Lateranensi Concilio dignoscitur constitutum, ut quicumque Clerici, illa incontinentia, quae contra naturam est, propter quam ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiae, deprehensi fuerint laborare, a Clero deiiciantur, vel ad agendum in Monasteriis poenitentiam detrudantur.

#2. Verum ne tanti flagitii contagium, impunitatis spe, quae maxima peccandi illecebra est, fidentius invalescat, Clericos hujus nefarii criminis reos, gravius ulciscendos deliberavimus, ut qui animae interitum non horrescunt, hos certe deterreat civilium legum vindex gladius saecularis.

#3. Itaque quod Nos iam in ipso Pontificatus nostri principio hac de re decrevimus, plenius nunc, fortiusque persequi intendentes, omnes, & quoscumque Presbyteros, & alios Clericos saeculares, & regulares cujuscumque gradus, & dignitatis, tam dirum nefas exercentes, omni privilegio clericali, omnique officio, dignitate, & beneficio Ecclesiastico praesentis Canonis auctoritate privamus. Ita quod per Judicem Ecclesiasticum degradati, potestati statim saeculari tradantur, qui de eis illud idem capiat supplicium, quod in laicos hoc in exitio devolutos, legitimis reperitur sanctionibus constitutum. Nulli ergo &c.

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, Anno Incarnationis Dominicae 1568. 3. Kal. Sep. Pont. nostri Anno III.

Against any cleric whosoever, secular or regular, who are guilty of a heinous crime.

Pius, Bishop (St. Pope Pius V)
Servant of the Servants of God

For perpetual memory of the matter.

A ghastly crime, by which the joined (papal) states were polluted enflamed by God’s fearful judgment, flares up our bitter sorrow, and gravely moves our soul so that we lend now our attentions to repress it as much as possible.

1. It was properly denoted by the Lateran Council, that whatsoever Cleric will have been discovered to suffer from that incontinence which is against nature, on account of which the wrath of God falls upon the sons of disobedience (cf. Vulg. Eph. 5,6), is to be ejected from the ranks of the clergy and be reduced to do penance in a monastery.

2. But lest the contagion of such a scourge, from the hope of impunity which is the greatest lure of sinning, more confidently grows in power, We determine that clerics guilty of this execrable crime are to be quite gravely punished, so that whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword of civil laws will certainly deter.

3. And thus because We have made a decree in this matter at the beginning of Our Pontificate, now in a fuller and stronger way intending it to be followed strictly, every and all priests, whoever they are, and other secular clerics, and regular clerics of any grade and dignity, busy at such a detestable monstrosity, We deprive of every clerical privilege, every office, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice by authority of the present legal instrument. So it is enacted that once they are degraded by the Ecclesiastical Judge, they be handed over immediately to the secular arm, which will exact upon them the same (death) penalty, which is ascertained to have been constituted by legitimate sanctions against laymen who have slid down into this ruin. Nothing to the contrary withstanding, etc.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, 30 August in the Year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1568 during the third year of Our Pontificate.
(01-08-2018, 10:13 PM)EMagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2018, 08:30 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]I'm too stupid to understand most of what you said, but I heard this stuff in the following video.  Scroll to 18 mins:


Why are you watching Sedevacantist videos?

The very first thing they discuss—the invalidity of the Novus Ordo ordination rite—is not only bogus, but horrifically poorly argued. Fr. (now supposedly "Bishop") Sanborn, says that "it was exactly the same as what Pius XII said, but they left out one word, and that was 'ut'", calling this an "essential defect" even though it in no way changes the actual meaning of the formula.

In doing that he claims that Pius XII "by his Apostolic authority" determined that "ut" was to be in the formula, but if that's the argument, the Paul VI could say that it was not necessary by the same authority ...

This is not a substantial change, any more than saying, "I'm going home, in order to eat dinner" is substantially different from "I'm going home; I'm going to eat dinner." 

(Even if that sounds somewhat convincing, realize that the ordination formulas both start by saying "grant to they servant the dignity of the priesthood" and "ut" stands between "renew in him the spirit of holiness" "hold the office of second-rank" meaning it used to say "renew in him the spirit ... so that he may hold the office of second-rank" and now says "renew in him the spirit ... may he hold the office of second-rank.")

Fr. Mroczka then jumps in to the rescue, adding an example about Baptism which clearly shows a substantial change in the Baptism formula (substituting "Buddha" for "Holy Ghost"), and suggests this shows why the Novus Ordo ordination is invalid.

This is not worthwhile or good for you to waste you time on.

------------------------------

To the point, however, instead of coming here, an posting the question, a quick Google search, should have turned up the information you were wanting.

Fr. Sanborn said that St. Pius V punished clerics with death penalty for homosexual actions. In that he's not incorrect, but also not entirely accurate. St. Pius V declared that a cleric caught in homosexual activity was to be laicised (and thus stripped of the protection of the Church's tribunals), and handed over to the secular authority who would punish the crime (because it was a crime) with the same penalty as a lay man : which in the Papal States was death.

That bull (Horrendum illud scelus) was easily found, and you could have answered your own question :


Quote:PIUS EPISCOPUS (SANCTUS PIUS Pp. V)

SERVUS SERVORUM DEI

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.

Horrendum illud scelus, quo pollutae foederatae Civitates a tremendo Dei judicio coflagrarunt, acerbissimum Nobis dolorem inurit, graviterque animum nostrum commovet, ut ad illud, quantum potest, comprimendum, studia nostra conferamus.

#1. Sane Lateranensi Concilio dignoscitur constitutum, ut quicumque Clerici, illa incontinentia, quae contra naturam est, propter quam ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiae, deprehensi fuerint laborare, a Clero deiiciantur, vel ad agendum in Monasteriis poenitentiam detrudantur.

#2. Verum ne tanti flagitii contagium, impunitatis spe, quae maxima peccandi illecebra est, fidentius invalescat, Clericos hujus nefarii criminis reos, gravius ulciscendos deliberavimus, ut qui animae interitum non horrescunt, hos certe deterreat civilium legum vindex gladius saecularis.

#3. Itaque quod Nos iam in ipso Pontificatus nostri principio hac de re decrevimus, plenius nunc, fortiusque persequi intendentes, omnes, & quoscumque Presbyteros, & alios Clericos saeculares, & regulares cujuscumque gradus, & dignitatis, tam dirum nefas exercentes, omni privilegio clericali, omnique officio, dignitate, & beneficio Ecclesiastico praesentis Canonis auctoritate privamus. Ita quod per Judicem Ecclesiasticum degradati, potestati statim saeculari tradantur, qui de eis illud idem capiat supplicium, quod in laicos hoc in exitio devolutos, legitimis reperitur sanctionibus constitutum. Nulli ergo &c.

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, Anno Incarnationis Dominicae 1568. 3. Kal. Sep. Pont. nostri Anno III.

Against any cleric whosoever, secular or regular, who are guilty of a heinous crime.

Pius, Bishop (St. Pope Pius V)
Servant of the Servants of God

For perpetual memory of the matter.

A ghastly crime, by which the joined (papal) states were polluted enflamed by God’s fearful judgment, flares up our bitter sorrow, and gravely moves our soul so that we lend now our attentions to repress it as much as possible.

1. It was properly denoted by the Lateran Council, that whatsoever Cleric will have been discovered to suffer from that incontinence which is against nature, on account of which the wrath of God falls upon the sons of disobedience (cf. Vulg. Eph. 5,6), is to be ejected from the ranks of the clergy and be reduced to do penance in a monastery.

2. But lest the contagion of such a scourge, from the hope of impunity which is the greatest lure of sinning, more confidently grows in power, We determine that clerics guilty of this execrable crime are to be quite gravely punished, so that whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword of civil laws will certainly deter.

3. And thus because We have made a decree in this matter at the beginning of Our Pontificate, now in a fuller and stronger way intending it to be followed strictly, every and all priests, whoever they are, and other secular clerics, and regular clerics of any grade and dignity, busy at such a detestable monstrosity, We deprive of every clerical privilege, every office, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice by authority of the present legal instrument. So it is enacted that once they are degraded by the Ecclesiastical Judge, they be handed over immediately to the secular arm, which will exact upon them the same (death) penalty, which is ascertained to have been constituted by legitimate sanctions against laymen who have slid down into this ruin. Nothing to the contrary withstanding, etc.

Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, 30 August in the Year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1568 during the third year of Our Pontificate.

In all fairness I DID Google search it -- I just wanted to be sure my understanding was correct.
Pages: 1 2