What, if any, was John Calvin's responsibility for the execution of Michael Servetus?

Question

To start with, it appears that John Calvin never really liked the brand of Christianity which the Spanish Protestant believed in and preached. Worse, some historians write that Calvin thought Servetus was a threat to his dominance over Geneva. Eventually, Servetus was burned at the stake, uttering "Misericordias! Misericordias!" (in Calvin's words, ". . . in that awful Spanish accent!") before expiring. As a corollary question, did Calvin express regret over the execution of Servetus?

Answer 1

It's difficult to answer this question without laying out the whole story. For that, I suggest you follow the links I list. (Also, if you can get your hands on it, there is a very careful biography *A Life of Calvin*, by Oxford professor Alister E McGrath [OXford, 1990], see pp.114-120.)

The story is often presented by those looking to criticize Calvin and often ignorant of him, of the situation in Geneva at the time, and throughout 16th century Europe.

Some things to note, that are often missed of gotten just plain wrong! (Do be careful with what you hear about this -- many have been so eager to attack Calvin about this matter that they have been careless, or worse, about the facts. In fact, the article at sevetus.org listed below, and bits of the wikipedia article, at times slip up, esp. when they begin to attribute motives to Calvin which we don't have evidence for.)

1. Who was "in charge"? It was the government of Geneva (specifically the "lesser Council") which tried the case and executed Servetus. Calvin was NEVER "in charge" of the government in Geneva (and as a refugee did not even have a vote in government matters). In fact, at the time of this case (1553) the Council was dominated by opponents of Calvin.

On the contrary, when Servetus was convicted and sentenced to be burned, even Calvin's simple appeal to the Council to execute him in a more humane way was rebuffed! (rather odd, if he was the "bloodthirsty tyrant' running things!)

2. Considering his appeal for a more humane punishment -- this, and his many appeals to Servetus to recant and be spared, shows that the many claims that suggest this was a personal vendetta by Calvin are at the best overstated. (As for the alleged quote insulting his accent, I have not seen that quote in ANY careful or scholarly treatment of the story, not even by those most supportive of Servetus.)

3. Execution of heretics --

a. Oddly, Calvin's critics choose the one and ONLY execution of a heretic in Geneva to focus on, while ignoring large scale executions all across Europe (by Protestants and Catholics alike) in the 16th century. All the stranger an accusation when it was made by his Catholic opponents, in that Servetus came to Geneva on the run from the Inquisition in France, where they had sentenced him to death for heresy!

b. We can be critical of this view, but must note that it was accepted by most Europeans in that time (in fact, it was agreed to by Servetus himself, who tried to charge CALVIN with it!!) Thus when the Council of Geneva, hesistant about what to do, contacted the other Protestant cities of Switzerland, and were advised by ALL of them that Servetus was worthy of death.

4. "Heresy"

a. You write of "Servetus' type of Christianity". Actually, Catholics and Protestants would have agreed that his teachings were not Christian at all, since they challenged central teachings on the Trinity (which he denied and even made very insulting remarks about) and the person of Christ.

b. Note that in medieval Europe, sects ('heresies') like this were rarely just religious movements or discussions of 'alternate interpretations'/views of religious matters. They frequently sought a major change in the social and government order, often by extreme measures. Thus they were considered a threat to the state and society in general (which is why the CIVIL government and NOT the church executed these people).

In this light, consider that Servetus had espoused views of baptism very close to those of the Anabaptists who were anarchists, seeking the overthrow of the civil government.

c. Also, from a religious point of view, the teaching of heretics was considered very dangerous to people's ETERNAL well-being. That is, a heretic was considered a "murderer of souls". You don't need to agree with how they responded to have some understanding of how this view would make capital punishment make some sense to them. (Note also that there were no long-term prisons to hold these people, and that the other option--banishment-- would only send them to preach the same things to others.)

In light of all this, the expectation of regret or morse from Calvin is a bit odd. He held the man to be a dangerous heretic, and the execution to be necessary, as did MOST people of his day. (Also, "regret" seems to suggest that this was all about personal animosity and/or that Calvin was the one who passed sentence on Servetus, neither of which fits the known facts.)

Several sites lay out the story, trying to do so in context:

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99812.qna/category/ch/page/questions/site
http://www.challies.com/archives/001318.php
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?457
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue02/c_vs_s.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_and_execution
http://www.servetus.org/en/michael-servetus/biography/bio7.htm
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8_ch13.htm

Answer 2

John Calvin never showed any sign of regret over the execution of Michael Servetus.