Written by 
In modern secular societies, relativistic views prevail. Truth is often determined by one’s preferences and feelings. If believing something feels good or makes you happy, ipso facto the belief is true and valid. Thus, freedom of speech is an inalienable right given to all people and all opinions are correct; right or wrong and absolute truth don’t exist in a relativistic worldview. To elevate one person’s opinions over another’s is to treat people unequally, since everyone has equal rights in determining what is true. The Muslim, the Jew, the Catholic, the Mormon, the Baptist, and the atheist are all equally correct simply because they believe themselves to be. It is “their truth.”
The medieval mindset was drastically different. The truth was revealed by God and communicated to man, and was an eternal truth existing outside and above the minds of men. Going against it risked the collapse of society and possible judgment from God, and would be a war against truth and nature. Further, you do not allow lies that have eternal consequences to go unchallenged, as simple people are easily swayed.
Information has the power to shape beliefs and actions. From the medieval Catholic perspective, allowing falsehood (if heresy is indeed falsehood as Catholics believe) to negatively affect humanity and endanger people’s souls was too high a price to pay for freedom of speech. If a four-year-old thinks they can fly off a building because they recently watched Superman and have a cape on, we rightly do not allow them to act on those false beliefs (or encourage others to). Falsehood inevitably leads to harm, and we must be cautious about what information we accept as accurate. Likewise, heretics were punished to prevent them from hurting others.[1]
Not everyone agrees with the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Medieval thinkers would not consider this idea sacred as modern Americans do. They believed that harmful lies and untruths should not have an equal platform with truth and beauty. Enlightenment thinkers believed that truth would always win out over lies and that people would be intelligent and unbiased enough to accept the truth. However, this is rarely the case.[2]
Long after the Middle Ages, but exemplifying the mindset of those earlier days, Pope Gregory XVI said, “Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?…when all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.”[3]The result is clear: Medieval philosophy and understanding of human nature are true, and the medieval belief in opposing lies helped maintain Christendom. In contrast, relativistic secularism has achieved the opposite.
The medieval Scholastics also believed that truth will ultimately prevail in a fair and impartial environment, where all perspectives are open to debate.[4] However, in a society without a foundation of Christian ideals, the opposite is likely to occur. Truth will be suppressed in education, and unchecked falsehoods will spread throughout the community.
We still accept certain restrictions on liberty in order to protect what we hold dear. A law that punishes murder or rape limits one’s freedom by acknowledging that all actions are not equal and that causing harm to others should be avoided. In the medieval perspective, human beings are not viewed solely as material beings but as individuals with a soul. This soul is considered more valuable to safeguard than the physical body, which is not everlasting. Thus maintaining orthodoxy is even more vital.
Moderns are not above silencing heretics even if we no longer punish them in the same way. We allow certain opinions and suppress others. Libraries, schools, and media cover particular subjects and overlook others. while newspapers decide what news is worth reporting and how to report it. Our worldview and personal beliefs influence all of these decisions and more. We do not give groups like the KKK the same platform for free speech as we do the LGBTQ community, nor do we afford Christianity the same opportunities as we do secularism. Each society decides its own values and prejudices and acts accordingly. Modern heretics are people like Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. The public condemns and ridicules them; they need reeducation before their harmful beliefs are spread, and they need to repent of their ways publicly. No doubt we are right to do this; medieval Christians likewise felt their treatment of religious heretics was justified and right.
Burn Them at The Stake
The death penalty given to heretics was not meant for punishment alone.[5] The chief purpose of the death penalty was to prevent further evil. Allowing heretics to live and spread their lies would rob still more people of eternal bliss.[6]Only unrepentant spreaders of heresy were found guilty; if they were allowed to live, their falsehoods would disseminate unchecked, endangering society. Those who refused to repent were subject to the death penalty, and heretics often chose to die instead of recanting.[7]
The goal of the secular authorities and the Church in eradicating heresy was not political power, but rather the defense of Christendom and God. It was their responsibility to shape society after Him, ensuring that correct doctrine was maintained for the sustainability of Christendom, and to keep the road to salvation open.[8]
During medieval times, Catholicism was widely accepted as unquestionably true by society. The Church saw certain heretics as suspicious pagans or individuals who had been misled. The Inquisitor aimed to bring them back to the Catholic faith. However, those who refused to repent or rejected the truth of Catholicism and continued to spread their lies (Jews were accepted because, unlike heretics, they did not seek converts[9]) were seen as serving Satan himself. They led good Catholics astray and willfully denied the truth, ultimately sending others to eternal damnation.[10] The Church’s purpose was not to stop people from thinking differently but to prevent them from misleading uninformed Catholics and endangering their eternal salvation. Preventing falsehoods and guiding the lost to truth were dual goals in halting heresy.[11] The inquisitors were not seeking out heretics who happened to privately believe odd things, only those who were publicly active.[12]
And to not support Christendom was an attack on Christ himself, not a mere opinion but an actual evil.[13] Those who were considered heretics were accused not of being ignorant or disbelieving, but rather of deliberately rejecting the truth.[14] The Decretum Gratiani, a book on canon law from the 12th century, defines heretics as those who teach and defend deadly doctrines. The term heretic refers not to those who are simply misguided or hold personal beliefs but to those who promote and defend their beliefs.[15] The main reason for punishing heretics who spread lies was to prevent Catholics from being deceived and endangering their souls.[16]
Theological truth was determined through church councils, argumentation, and debate. It was believed that heretics were not interested in finding the truth because they refused to engage in such discussions with church officials, choosing instead to take advantage of ignorant peasants. Consequently, their leaders deliberately misled people away from the faith and towards damnation. Inquisitors were trained to argue and debate to guide those who were led astray, but anyone who refused to repent was believed to be willingly rejecting the truth in favor of falsehood. Lords often criticized the Inquisitors for being too lenient towards heretics since they believed they were also duty-bound to maintain a Christian society.
Peace and Unity
Christianity was not viewed as our modern secular society views it, as a “religion” that should only affect your life while in church or private prayer time. No, it was the basis on which to structure society. Heresy, or the rejection of widely accepted religious doctrines, was not simply an attack on a particular religion or church but rather a threat to the entire fabric of society. If heretical beliefs and practices are allowed to spread throughout society, it would inevitably destroy peace and faith, resulting in violence and moral degradation.[17] Your beliefs will significantly influence your actions and the society around you. Therefore, preventing beliefs that go against Christian values from destabilizing society was essential. Pope Innocent III argued that heresy threatened society, culture, and the root of society, which was built upon Catholicism. Any attack on Christ or the Church was seen as an attack on society, which could unravel if not defended.
They believed that since everyone is a sinner and fails to live out what he believes is ideal, the most vital thing to know about someone is not where and when he fails (since confession and repentance can clear his soul) but what his ideals are. Knowing what he believes the goal of society ought to be will better tell us who the man is and what he will do.[18] Up to and during the 13th century, a person was considered a heretic based on their way of life rather than their beliefs.[19]
The people of that time believed that unity, peace and prosperity could only be achieved if everyone shared the same beliefs, culture, politics, and religion. They thought anything that caused discord, such as heresy, would eventually disturb the entire society, leading to internal wars, fighting, crime, anger, hatred, and other negative consequences. This is also why they rejected democracy, as they believed it would divide communities, churches, families, and so on.[20]
Secular rulers persecuted heresy because a heretic is not just a traitor to the Church, but to the King, who received his authority from God and the Church. To reject one is to reject the other. Additionally, medieval kings were deeply troubled by the possibility of facing divine judgment if they allowed the spread of a heretical belief that denies salvation through Jesus. The Old Testament has documented instances where God punished leaders for allowing heretical beliefs to thrive in their territories. Therefore, the ruler must eliminate heretics from the region. During the historical period of heresy, Christianity significantly impacted every aspect of society. Any attempts to disrupt Christianity were perceived as a threat to the entire civilization. Communities became divided by violence following heresy, threatening both souls and the social order, often leading to violent rebellions.
Heresy was not an opinion held in secret but one openly displayed, contrary to God’s word and the Church.[21]Inquisitions were viewed as a defensive action against new heresy that threatened society and Christendom; they reacted to forces threatening medieval society. Therefore, only individuals who openly preached heretical beliefs, sought to convert others, and denied central Christian doctrines were considered guilty of heresy.[22] They defended against attacks on their society as surely as we would defend ours. We, the people and our authorities, would step in with swift action were the KKK to spread its influence in society. If “equality” and “democratic values” were threatened, society at large would rise up in righteous wrath and stamp out any threats to our beliefs. The peoples of the Middle Ages differed only in their priorities, what they held most dear, and what society was built upon – the Catholic Church.
Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) – Amazon US | Amazon UK
You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com
Bibliography
-Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. New York, London: J.M. Dent; E.P. Dutton, 1910.
-Burman, Edward. The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy. Dorset Press, 1992.
-Carroll, Warren H. 1993. The Glory of Christendom. N.p.: Christendom Press.
–Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated. Crown Publishing Group, 1995.
-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001.
-Davis, Michael Warren. The Reactionary Mind: Why Conservative Isn’t Enough. Regnery Gateway, 2021.
-Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4) (Story of Civilization). Simon & Schuster, 1980.
-Ferrara, Christopher A. 2012. Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. N.p.: Angelico Press.
-Hoffmann, Richard. An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
-Holmes, George, ed. 1988. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. N.p.: Oxford University Press.
-Jarrett, Bede. 2007. Social Theories of the Middle Ages, 1200-1500. N.p.: Archivum Press.
-Jones, Andrew W. 2017. Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX. N.p.: Emmaus Academic.
-Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press, 2014.
-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001
-L. PLUNKET, IERNE L. 1922. EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai, England: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
-Madden, Thomas, director. “The Modern Scholar: Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition.” 2008.
-Madden, Thomas. “The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture.” The Great Courses Series, 2019.
-The following citation were derived from Medieval Sourcebook Fordham University (“Confession of Arnaud Gélis, also called Botheler “The Drunkard” of Mas-Saint-Antonin”)(“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”) (GUI, BERNARD, and Translation by David Burr. “BERNARD GUI: INQUISITOR’S MANUAL.”.)(Schroeder, H. J., translator. The Disciplinary Decrees of the Ecumenical Counci,. St. Louis:, B. Herder Book Co., 1937).(Agobard of Lyons, and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);.Agobard of Lyons (9th Century): On Hail and Thunder.”)
-Pernoud, Regine. Glory of the Medieval World. Dobson Books Ltd, 1950.
-Peters, Edward. Inquisition. University of California Press, 1989.
-Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Wiley, 2006.
-Smith, Jeb. 2024. Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty.
-Smith, Jeb. 2023. The Road Goes Ever On and On. N.p.: Christian Faith Publishing, Incorporated.
-Stark, Rodney. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. Templeton Press, 2017.
-Thatcher, Oliver J. “The Library of Original Sources – Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp. 211-239.” Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co, 1901.
-Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300-1475: Formerly entitled a History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500. 4th ed., Knopf, 1983.
-Weidenkompf, Steve, director. The Real Story of the Inquisitions. Catholic Answers.
-Weidenkopf, Steve. The Real Story of Catholic History: Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths. Catholic Answers, Incorporated, 2017
-Wickham, Chris. Medieval Europe. Yale University Press, 2017.
[1] (Kors and Peters 223)
[2] (Smith 2024)
[3] (Ferrara 2012, 245)
[4] (Smith 2024)
[5] (Smith 2024)
[6] (Jarrett 2007, 220-223)
[7] (GUI and Burr)
[8] (Jarrett 2007, 223)
[9] (Jarrett 2007, 216)
[10] (Jones 2017, 292)
[11] (GUI and Burr)
[12] (Davis 2021 30)
[13] (Durant 1950, 777)
[14] (Jarrett 2007, 217)
[15] (Peters 61)
[16] (Peters 44)
[17] (Jones 2017) (Jarrett 2007, 216)
[18] (L. PLUNKET 1922, THE FAITH OF THE MIDDLE AGES)
[19] (Jones 2017, 133)
[20] (Smith 2024) (Peters 161)
[21] (Peters 42)
[22] (Jarrett 2007, 190)