Castellio’s Plea for Toleration: From Zweig’s THE RIGHT TO HERESY
In the aftermath of the cruel treatment and ultimately still crueler execution by slow burning of Miguel Servetus by John Calvin and his minions in Geneva, Sebastian Castellio wrote a powerful polemic in defense of toleration and the right of free conscience. (Before it could be published, Calvin succeeded in having this work suppressed.)
Here is a passage from Stefan Zweig’s THE RIGHT TO HERESY about this piece of religious history, from 1554:
***************
“‘Whereas’ [writes Castellio] in one city or neighborhood, they will style you a true believer, in the next city, or the adjoining neighborhood, they will despise you as a heretic; so that he who today wishes to live undisturbed must have as many convictions and religions as there are towns and countries.’ Now Castellio [writes Zweig] comes to his last and boldest formulation. “WHen I reflect on what a heretic really is, I can find no other criterion than we are all heretics in the eyes of those who do not share our views.’ This seems extremely simple, almost commonplace, so obvious is it. But to say as much frankly, demanded immense moral courage in those days. For the significance of this formulation was that a whole era, its leaders, princes, and priests, Catholics and Lutherans alike, were flatly told that their heresy-hunting was absurd, and the outcome of an illusion. Thousands and tens of thousands had been persecuted and put to death, hanged, drowned, or burned, illegally; they were innocent, for they had not committed any crime against God or the State… Who is entitled to direct a fellow-man’s thoughts, or to consider the latters intimate and most private convictions a crime at common law?… ‘We can live together peacefully [wrote Castellio] only when we control our intolerance. Even though there will always be differences of opinion from time to time, we can at any rate come to general understandings, can love one another, and can enter the bonds of peace, pending the day when we shall attain unity of faith.’
“…’Cruelties and persecutions are the outcome of arrogance,’ [Castellio writes,] ‘so that a man wil not tolerate others’ differing in any way from his own views, although there are today almost as many opinions as there are individuals. Yet there is not one sect which does not condemn all the others and wish to reign supreme. That accounts for banishments, exiles, incarcerations, burnings, hangings, the blind fury of the tormentors who are continually at work…[I]f Christ were here on earth today, He would never advise you to kill those who call on His name, even though they may err upon some detail, or may deviate from the right path.’”
****************
ABS: The remainder of Zweig’s book details how absolutely determined Calvin was to destroy Castellio, to eliminate his voice, to prevent others from hearing his call for toleration. Besides suppressing first this work, and then another in which Castellio most powerfully indicts Calvin for his murder of Sevetus, Calvin continually pressed to have Castellio –who lived in Basel, outside of Calvin’s area of despotic rule– prosecuted and executed on one pretext or another, always having to do with heresy, which always meant disagreeing with Calvin.
Calvin would have succeeded in his destructive project had not the strain of one assault or another finally taken its toll on Castellio, who died of natural causes –his heart gave out, at the age of 48–before his prosecution could be completed.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I could comment on this as I have thought about it, ie, the powerful conflict with differing beliefs many times. But more simply
maybe, they were barely escaped from the Pope and cohesion of believers seemed essential. In those days the economy was meagre for most and what you were in the main was how you believed and/or identified NOT HOW MUCH GOODS AND SERVICES YOU COULD CONSUME.
Also, as Andy has written about, there is te ever present ‘problem’ of contagion and obviously a ‘heresy’ permitted would be expected to spread to others weakening the ‘political’ power of the movement. So !
This burning went on carried on by both Catholics and Protestants in several countries as the struggle for Dominance between Catholic and Protestant went on; and against anabaptists as well I believe.
We do not realize in America today how much a prospering economy (since WWII) has delivered us from the power of discrimination on the basis of Belief and religious identification.
When I was younger an application for employment required
you to note: Catholic, Protestant or Jew . . .( and White or Negro)
Economic system has somewhat replaced religion as a ‘common denominator’)
However that human instinct for demanding conformity to a common community standard . . it just has other forms for the moment.
For The Moment
…………………………………………………………………………………………
While Calvin made a real contribution to the development of Protestantism a simple quick comparison might explain some of the extremism of his own personality:
The same astrological birth sign as George W Bush and John Quincy Adams also, whose own uncle was convinced he was demon possessed.
February 21st, 2010 at 12:03 am
I wonder what response various “born-again-Christians would have to this piece.
Assumedly, they would not apply it to themselves. This represents a formidable cognitive deficit – and one, as of yet, for which no antidote or curative process exists.
February 21st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
OK, I’ll bite, but I don’t think I’m a very typical Christian when it comes to a lot of topics, including Calvin. (By the way, I don’t much care for the term “born-again Christian”. It seems somewhat redundant to me.)
I have never been able to excuse Calvin for his part in Servetus’ execution. I first read about it nearly forty years ago while in college. (I don’t recall reading about Castellio at that time.) I know that some folks excuse Calvin on the grounds it was actually the city council that passed the death sentence and carried it out, or that religious persecution was very common at the time, and religious orthodoxy was esteemed in a way that we moderns cannot comprehend. But Calvin could have stopped the execution, and I just can’t get past that. I don’t care that he is supposed to be one of the greatest theologians of all time. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13, “If I … can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge … but have not love, I am nothing”. If he couldn’t understand that allowing someone to be put to death over theological differences isn’t showing love for them, then I don’t have much regard for anything he has to say.
I realize that many (most?) Christians apparently don’t agree with me on this, since Calvin continues to be honored and his theological opinions highly respected.
I would like to point out that we all have our blind spots, and that many on the left may not be able to see that intolerance and is not the exclusive province of the right. Consider the Left’s reaction when someone dares to express an opinion different from their orthodox views on topics like abortion, homosexuality, global warming, or evolution. Often those expressing “heretical” views are ridiculed; I have read of people who were removed from their job, or not hired for a position, because they were not orthodox evolutionists.
I would also point out that most of the parts of the world where tolerance is so highly regarded are places that have been heavily influenced by Christianity, so there must be something in Christianity that leads to tolerance. I’m glad that Castellio was able to discern that Calvin’s way was not Christ’s way, and I’m glad that Castallio’s view has largely prevailed. Even the Christian Right, with its partly deserved reputation for intolerance, does not advocate the death penalty for heretics; these days, you have to look to other religions to find intolerance taken to that extreme.
February 21st, 2010 at 9:33 pm
What I know about all this is pretty much what I read in Zweig’s book. I believe Zweig to be pretty trustworthy, but I can’t swear to the veracity of his account.
That being said, Jim C, Calvin’s role was much more central than that. In Zweig’s telling, the WHOLE impetus came from Calvin. His will was everything in Geneva at that time, and he used proxies when it suited his purpose to push his agenda, including the city government, but the whole push was from Calvin and others simply did his bidding. It is a very disturbing, very ugly picture that comes across in this highly readable, morally impassioned book.
February 21st, 2010 at 10:35 pm
If Zweig was Jewish, might he not not take a prejudiced view of a very effective ‘Christian’ leader ?
February 21st, 2010 at 10:46 pm
No. Read the book, David. His treatment of Christianity is most sympathetic. Castellio’s critique of Calvin is based considerably on a “What Would Jesus Do?” kind of approach. Christianity comes across as a religion of love, whose spirit Calvin violates.
Here’s a quotation from Castellio:
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:58 am
Andy, I appreciate your clarifying Calvin’s responsibility in Servetus’ death. I did leave the impression that he had less responsibility than was actually the case. I just meant to point out that some people attempt to excuse him on the technicality that he did not personally pass the sentence, but you’re right, from what I’ve read, he was in control in Geneva and the council was carrying out his wishes.
And I completely agree that the story is very ugly and very disturbing. It pretty much ruined Calvin for me.