Would the Roman Catholic Church execute heretics today if they were capable of doing so, having enough government influences to allow that, or do they truly no longer go for that sort of thing? What exactly changed with their execution ethics, anyway? The recent couple of Popes talking like they are suddenly pacifists is pretty strange, come to think of it. Yet, then you have Catholics discussing the matter like this:https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/v7wr0h/how_would_you_honestly_respond_to_aquinas_view/?solution=2f00599ccadcb80b2f00599ccadcb80b&js_challenge=1&token=bbbe4bf1c9a2b5160829c4be34da5861d340b6a1c8b7ff562689cce069fe8e00
>>18418048Actually interesting. Does the Vatican have a plan if they somehow take over the governments of the world, again? I know it is not the Middle Ages, but if it was fine then, it is fine now? Isn't that the nature of the unchanged true church?
>>18418952Because the entire political structure has changed. Back then, since there was no separation of church & state, a heretic was undermining political stability, not merely committing a religious offense. Since heretics today wouldn't be viewed similarly, there's no point in executing them (and every reason not to, as that would actually undermine the political structure)
