Thomas Aquinas

===Treatment of heretics===
Thomas Aquinas belonged to the Dominican Order (formally ''[[Ordo Praedicatorum]]'', the Order of Preachers) which began as an order dedicated to the conversion of the [[Albigensians]] and other heterodox factions, at first by peaceful means; later the Albigensians were dealt with by means of the [[Albigensian Crusade]]. In the ''Summa Theologiae'', he wrote:
<blockquote>With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they 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 graver matter to corrupt the faith that quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy, which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition", as [[Paul of Tarsus|the Apostle]] directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.<ref>{{cite book |author=Thomas Aquinas |title=Summa Theologica |volume=II–II |chapter=Question 11, Article 3 |chapter-url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3}}</ref></blockquote>

Heresy was a capital offence against the secular law of most European countries of the 13th century. Kings and emperors, even those at war with the papacy, listed heresy first among the crimes against the state. Kings claimed power from God according to the Christian faith. Often enough, especially in that age of papal claims to universal worldly power, the rulers' power was tangibly and visibly legitimated directly through coronation by the pope.

Simple theft, forgery, fraud, and other such crimes were also capital offences; Thomas's point seems to be that the gravity of this offence, which touches not only the material goods but also the spiritual goods of others, is at least the same as forgery. Thomas's suggestion specifically demands that heretics be handed to a "secular tribunal" rather than [[magisterium|magisterial]] authority. That Thomas specifically says that heretics "deserve{{nbsp}}... death" is related to his theology, according to which all sinners have no intrinsic right to life ("For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"<ref>{{bibleverse|Romans|6:23|ASV}}</ref>). Although the life of a heretic who repents should be spared, the former heretic should be executed if he relapses into heresy. Thomas elaborates on his opinion regarding heresy in the next article, when he says:<blockquote>In God's tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death.

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.<ref>{{cite book |author=Thomas Aquinas |title=Summa Theologica |volume=II–II |chapter=Question 11, Article 4 |chapter-url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article4}}</ref></blockquote>

For Jews, Thomas argues for toleration of both their persons and their religious rites.<ref>Novak, Michael (December 1995), [http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/12/003-aquinas-and-the-heretics "Aquinas and the Heretics"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160409052324/http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/12/003-aquinas-and-the-heretics|date=9 April 2016}}, ''First Things''.</ref>
==== Forced baptism of children of Jews and heretics ====
The position taken by Thomas was that if children were being reared in error, the Church had no authority to intervene. From ''[[Summa Theologica]]'' II-II Q. 10 Art. 12:

: Injustice should be done to no man. Now it would be an injustice to Jews if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were Christians. Therefore, these should not be baptized against their parent's will. The custom of the Church has been given very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic Doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than that of an [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] or a [[Jerome]] or any doctor whatever. Now it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the children of Jews against the will of their parents. There are two reasons for this custom. One is on account of the danger to faith. For children baptized before coming into the use of reason, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith. The other reason is that it is against natural justice. For a child is by nature part of its father: at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within the mother's womb and later on after birth, and before it has the use of [[free will]], it is enfolded in the care of its parents, like a spiritual womb. So long as a man does not have the use of reason, he is no different from an irrational animal. Hence, it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parent's custody, or anything done against its parent's wish.

The question was again addressed by Thomas in ''[[Summa Theologica]]'' III Q. 68 Art. 10:

: It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xiv), quoting the [[Council of Toledo]]: In regard to the Jews the holy synod commands that henceforth none of them be forced to believe; for such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that their righteousness may be without flaw. Children of non-believers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore, of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract in marriage. Consequently, such can be lawfully advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients were saved through the faith of their parents.

The issue was discussed in a papal bull by [[Pope Benedict XIV]] (1747) where both schools were addressed. The pope noted that the position of Aquinas had been more widely held among theologians and [[canon lawyers]], than that of John Duns Scotus.<ref>Denzinger, Henry, [[Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum|''The Sources of Catholic Dogma'']], B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, 1955, p.&nbsp;364</ref>