In light of the massacres of the Huguenots, that's a pretty chilling thing to say. You consider me in error, therefore, do you think I have no rights? Would you execute me as a heretic if you had the power?
Error has no rights, but the State has no right to punish heretics who don't harm the common good of society.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality. These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. (Vatican Council II, Declaration "Dignitatis Humanae")
Another question, essentially different, is this: could the norm be established in a community of states-at least in certain circumstances-that the free exercise of a belief and of a religious or moral practice which possess validity in one of the member states, be not hindered throughout the entire territory of the community of nations by state laws or coercive measures? In other words, the question is raised whether in these circumstances "non impedire" or toleration is permissible, and whether, consequently, positive repression is not always a duty.We have just adduced the authority of God. Could God, although it would be possible and easy for Him to repress error and moral deviation, in some cases choose the "non impedire" without contradicting His infinite perfection? Could it be that in certain circumstances He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer. Reality shows that error and sin are in the world in great measure. God reprobates them, but He permits them to exist. Hence the affirmation: religious and moral error must always be impeded, when it is possible, because toleration of them is in itself immoral, is not valid absolutely and unconditionally.
Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality. Such a command is unknown to the common convictions of mankind, to Christian conscience, to the sources of Revelation and to the practice of the Church. To omit here other Scriptural texts which are adduced in support of this argument, Christ in the parable of the cockle gives the following advice: let the cockle grow in the field of the world together with the good seed in view of the harvest (cf. Matt. 13:24-30). The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to higher and more general norms, which in some circumstances permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a greater good.
Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good. (Pius XII, Allocution "Ci Riesce")
Dear Rytwyng,
I would not burn you as a heretic. I once scalded myself incurring second degree burns and I would not wish this on anyone. ST. Joan of Arc was burned by rotten Catholic Churchmen but that does not mean that the Catholic religion is false. Heresy kills the soul and sends people to hell. Now I think if you really study history you will see that plenty of Catholics were burned and tortured by Protestants for heresy. It is not necessary to give you a long list. If we look at our lives they are very brief and eternity is forever.
Anyway here is Aquinas "Heretics deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much more serious matter to corrupt the faith than to counterfeit that which supports temporal life. Wherefore, if counterfeiters and other evil-doers are immediately condemned to death by secular authorities, there is much more reason for heretics to be put to death. (St. Thomas Aquinas) see Thomas Aquinas: STL II-II, Q.11, art.3
Now we do not do this today- Protestants or Catholics- our civil society which is really not so civil renders this illegal so this idea of burning heretics is a mute point. But what does our so called "civil society" render legal today? It is anything but "civil" and what it allows kills both body and soul- look at abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, divorce, pornography, grotesque violent TV. and video games with no purpose but to reinforce violence for its own sake, child photography, the rampant break down of society and now the final straw homosexual marriage not to mention the weapons of mass destruction which if unleashed can kill millions. Many claim that because religion did such things as burned people at the stake we should just get rid of religion and make a one World religion based on a sycratistic mixing of all of the religions which will be the Satanism of the antichrist who will come into the World. Then we will we see a fire such as has never been known which St. Peter speaks.
2Pe 3:7 -But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men.
2Pe 3:12 -Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat?
Jude 1:7 -As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
So in our “civil society” of today when unborn babies are aborted to the false god Baal- the god of sex and convenience are we really better off now when there are no heretics being burned? God bless you and lead you into the One, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.