Augustine Denied Free Will, Supported Brutal Coercion?

[patricius79]

Is there anyone who can add to Paleocons argument regarding the Donatists?

And does anyone know enough to argue that it would have saved more souls to NOT coerce the Donatists?

 

[dmar198]

Is there anyone who can add to Paleocons argument regarding the Donatists?

St. Thomas More discussed St. Augustine’s position on the Donatists, and he explained that St. Augustine only supported using force against them once the Donatists themselves became violent. Here is the relevant paragraph: We read that in the time of Saint Augustine, the great theologian of the Church, the heretics in Africa called the Donatists resorted to force and violence, robbing, beating, torturing, and killing those whom they seized from the true Christian flock, as the Lutherans have done in Germany. For putting a stop to which, that holy man Saint Augustine, who had for a long time with great patience borne and endured their malice, only writing and preaching in refutation of their errors, and not only had done them no temporal harm but also had hindered and opposed others who would have done it, did yet at last, for the peace of good people, both permit and exhort Count Boniface and others to suppress them with force and threaten them with corporal punishment. (St. Thomas More, Dialog Concerning Heresies Part 4 Chapter 13) After reviewing other examples of the Church suppressing heretics, the saint concludes: [E]ven if it is quite evident (which I think it is) that the clergy could in this case rightly take quite drastic measures against heretics, they yet in actuality go no further than the old holy Fathers did in their time, and do no more than the blessed Apostle counsels them to do. No, all the severe punishment of heretics, with which such folk as favor them want so much to render the clergy infamous, is and has been—on account of the great outrages and temporal harms that such heretics have always been wont to do, and the seditious commotions that they are wont to make, besides the far surpassing spiritual hurts that they do to peoples’ souls. (ibid. chapter 18) As for suppression in modern times, it was not only a couple of decades ago that Protestants were forbidden to preach in the open air in Spain and Italy. According to Wikipedia, the Vatican still forbids Muslims to practice Muslim rites in the cathedral of Cordoba, and the Spanish government enforces this by arresting those who try (which they occasionally try to do for staged protests against the Spanish government). In a way, these measures constitute a limited form of suppressing some non-Catholic religious practices by force, but I think they can be defended. Harming people merely for their beliefs, however, is something that I don’t think any Catholic can legitimately defend, and I think it would be a mistake to use the words of St. Thomas Aquinas or Pope Pius IX to support using force against non-Catholics, except in a just war, for purposes of self-defense, or in the more limited sense of prohibiting heretical proselytization in a Catholic country.

 

[patricius79]

Thanks dmar. Supposing the US were a predominantly and string Catholic country, might it be good to prohibit heretical–eg Protestant–places of religiius assembly, under pain of heavy fines, or imprisonment?

Peace of Mary and Jesus

 

[dmar198]

Thanks dmar. Supposing the US were a predominantly and string Catholic country, might it be good to prohibit heretical–eg Protestant–places of religiius assembly, under pain of heavy fines, or imprisonment?

Peace of Mary and Jesus

It is my understanding that, even in a strong Catholic country, it would not be good to prohibit Protestants from assembling for the religious purposes, at least not simply on the grounds that they aren’t Catholic. I base this conclusion on my understanding of the Second Vatican Council: Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties. (Dignitatis Humanae 4) In the document I just cited, Dignitatis Humanae, there is an important qualification in the paragraph above the one I just quoted: “Provided the just demands of public order are observed…”

This provision seems to imply that, if the just demands of public order are violated by a Protestant community as part of its activities, it may be prevented from engaging in those activities. I think the Catechism clarifies this issue in the following sentence: “The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a ‘public order’ conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.” (CCC 2109) That sentence cites Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura 3 for more details, and that document can be read here: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm (scroll to #3)

I know this post is probably starting to get confusing at this point, so let me try to summarize before I continue. Vatican 2 appears to say that all religious communities have a right to build places of worship and preach their faith publicly, “provided the just demands of public order are observed.” The Catechism appears to say that this phrase, “public order,” is not to be interpreted in a positivist or naturalist manner, and cites Quanta Cura 3.

Still with me? Ok, great. So how does Quanta Cura 3 clarify? Well, it appears to condemn the following statement: “[People] should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” Quanta Cura calls this statement “[an] erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls.” (Quanta Cura 3)

Therefore, it seems to me that heretics must be permitted to assemble for religious purposes and preach publicly, but they do not have a right to publicly preach absolutely any idea of their ideas whatever. Does that make sense?

 

[Estevao]

You don’t defend it, just laugh off his arrogance, Augustine is a doctor of the church, your friend couldn’t hold a candle to the great Augustine in any way, shape or form.

 

[patricius79]

Dmar, thanks. So if Im getting it, were saying that if the US were a strongly Catholic Country, we must still allow Baptists, lets say, to assemble and even preach publicly “within due limits”–ie unless they are going too far, such as saying some of the things Calvin maybe sais like that God causes people to sin, or Catholics are going to hell, and such?

Or what if , for example, a liberal religiin-- lets say some liberal Methodists – are promoting or making allowance for contraception or abortion?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I ran across a Protestant person who said Augustine was closer to Protestantism than Catholicism. Below is my response. Hopefully this additional data will help your friend.

Unity with the whole Church in faith and sacraments was a fundamental principle of his thought and action. He used the expression “orbis terrarum”–-the whole world—for this in several works. His famous line securus judicat orbis terrarum (the whole world judges securely) occurs in his first major work against the Donatists: “The whole world judges securely that they are not good who separate themselves from the whole world.” (Contra Parmeniani, 3, 4, 24) The faith of the whole church that Augustine assented to and taught was sacramental, hierarchical, and transmitted God’s word through scripture and tradition in the church.

Augustine stressed the necessity and efficacy of baptism against the Donatists (De baptismo), he teaches the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Enarrationes in psalmos 99, 8; Serm. 227; 272; De Trinitate 3, 4, 10; In Ioannis 11, 3); the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (Questionum in heptateuchum 3, 57; Contra Faustus 20, 21; De Civitas Dei 10, 5 & 20; Letter 98:9), and that Holy Orders is a sacrament (Contra Parmeniani 2, 13, 28; De bono conjugali 24, 32).

But most of all, a central principle in Augustine’s theology and exegetical method is the role of tradition. There is of course his well-known statement: “If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what should you answer him when he says: ‘I do not believe?’ Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” (Contra ep. mani 5, 6) He argued vigorously for infant baptism convinced that its origin was apostolic because it was handed on by tradition (De baptismo 2, 7, 12; 4, 24, 32; De Genesi ad litteram, 10, 23, 39). This apostolic tradition is guarded and handed on by the succession of bishops of Rome beginning with Peter. In one instance Augustine asks rhetorically what keeps him in the church and answers first the consent of the church throughout the world, the church’s authority, and then “The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.” (Contra epistulam manichaei, 4, 5). He specifies even further in his letter to Generosus (Letter, 53, 1, 2): “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:—Clement, . . . [etc., etc., all the way down to the current Pope at the time of his writing ] Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.” (See also Letter 54, 1, 1; Contra Iulianum, 2, 10, 33-34; In Ioannis, 37, 6)

Augustine, is famous for stressing the role of grace, but not at the expense of freedom. He begins a work on grace and freedom with these words: “With reference to those persons who so preach and defend man’s free will, as boldly to deny, and endeavor to do away with, the grace of God which calls us to Him, and delivers us from our evil deserts, and by which we obtain the good deserts which lead to everlasting life: we have already said a good deal in discussion, and committed it to writing, so far as the Lord has vouchsafed to enable us. But since there are some persons who so defend God’s grace as to deny man’s free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write.” (On Grace and Free Will, 1) He also writes: “A man can come to Church unwillingly, can approach the altar unwillingly, partake of the sacrament unwillingly: but he cannot believe unless he is willing credere non potest nisi volens].” (In Ioannis, 26, 2) “He who created you without your cooperation does not justify you without your cooperation. He who created you without your knowing it, he does not justify you without your wanting it.” (Sermon 11, 13)

It is hard to imagine a theological and exegetical method more diametrically opposed to that of the Reformation than Augustine’s. I would say that someone who assented to and taught the faith of the whole church (orbis terrarum) that was sacramental, hierarchical, and transmitted God’s word through scripture and tradition in the church guarded by the succession of bishops of Rome, and whose diocese was not in schism from Rome would qualify as Roman Catholic.

 

[patricius79]

Thanks Fr of Jazz. That is very helpful. Peace of Mary and Jesus.

 

[Contarini]

I have a friend who is pretty learned about early Church history, but is not Catholic. I don’t want to say too much about him, in order to protect his privacy. And he is a good man. He is also just. For example, he strongly acknowledges that the early Church believed in the Papacy. He is also very critical of Protestantism. He thinks that Luther and Calvin were terrible Biblical exegetes and that Calvinwas a terrible heretic. (Probably he believes that about Luther too).

However, he has a negative view of Augustine both as a man and as a Church father. He believes that Augustine was closer to Protestantism than Catholicism. he says that in the 1500s Catholic scholars did a study of Augustine called “Augustinum” (sp?), which meant to prove Augustine’s Catholicity but concluded instead that Augustine was closer to Protestantism (the Protestantism of that day, not ours).

Anyway, here’s the biggest point: he believes that Augustine denied free will and that this is what caused him to be “the father of the inquisition”. That is, he says that because Augustine denied free will, he says that Augustine approved of the theft from and murder of people who disagreed with the Church and other coercion I guess.

How do I respond to this, if at all?

He’s talking about Cornelius Jansen’s book Augustinus (1640) which set forth a radically Augustinian theology which his Jesuit opponents (and eventually the Pope) condemned as being too close to Calvinism. Not quite what your friend claims.

Augustine did not approve of killing heretics, but no doubt his later complex views about free will did play some role in his infamous “compel them to come in”–i.e., he favored non-lethal methods of government coercion against heretics.

Augustine defended free will in his earlier work, but his position changed in later years. He would not have said that he denied free will in a philosophical sense, but he became convinced that as sinners we lack the ability to choose God and that only the elect are so moved by God as to delight in what is good and persevere in the love of God. This required him to put some caveats on his earlier unqualified defense of free will. In the Reformation, the Protestants typically quoted later Augustine and the Catholics quoted early Augustine!

 

[steve_b]

I have a friend who is pretty learned about early Church history, but is not Catholic. I don’t want to say too much about him, in order to protect his privacy. And he is a good man. He is also just. For example, he strongly acknowledges that the early Church believed in the Papacy. He is also very critical of Protestantism. He thinks that Luther and Calvin were terrible Biblical exegetes and that Calvinwas a terrible heretic. (Probably he believes that about Luther too).

However, he has a negative view of Augustine both as a man and as a Church father. He believes that Augustine was closer to Protestantism than Catholicism. he says that in the 1500s Catholic scholars did a study of Augustine called “Augustinum” (sp?), which meant to prove Augustine’s Catholicity but concluded instead that Augustine was closer to Protestantism (the Protestantism of that day, not ours).

Anyway, here’s the biggest point: he believes that Augustine denied free will and that this is what caused him to be “the father of the inquisition”. That is, he says that because Augustine denied free will, he says that Augustine approved of the theft from and murder of people who disagreed with the Church and other coercion I guess.

How do I respond to this, if at all?

I would say, always ask a person for the source properly referenced of course, who makes a comment that you want to challenge. You should be able to go like a lazer beam to the quote after they give you the reference. It not, then it’s probably someone’s opinion they are passing on

 

[steve_b]

I have a friend who is pretty learned about early Church history, but is not Catholic.

[snip]

However, he has a negative view of Augustine both as a man and as a Church father. He believes that Augustine was closer to Protestantism than Catholicism. he says that in the 1500s Catholic scholars did a study of Augustine called “Augustinum” (sp?), which meant to prove Augustine’s Catholicity but concluded instead that Augustine was closer to Protestantism (the Protestantism of that day, not ours).

Anyway, here’s the biggest point: he believes that Augustine denied free will and that this is what caused him to be “the father of the inquisition”. That is, he says that because Augustine denied free will, he says that Augustine approved of the theft from and murder of people who disagreed with the Church and other coercion I guess.

How do I respond to this, if at all?

Ask him for his source . Don’t accept him saying Augustine said this or that. That’s not proper sourcing. The same goes for anyone saying anything that sounds off base. Have them give a proper source.

Augustine is not just a saint and Church Father. He’s a doctor of the Church. His writings are a breeze to access. If your friend has a smart phone or personal computer, then have him look up his comments about Augustine in Augustines own writings to see if it’s true

• Confessions
• Letters
• City of God
• Christian Doctrine
• On the Holy Trinity
• The Enchiridion
• On the Catechising of the Uninstructed
• On Faith and the Creed
• Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen
• On the Profit of Believing
• On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens
• On Continence
• On the Good of Marriage
• On Holy Virginity
• On the Good of Widowhood
• On Lying
• To Consentius: Against Lying
• On the Work of Monks
• On Patience
• On Care to be Had For the Dead
• On the Morals of the Catholic Church
• On the Morals of the Manichaeans
• On Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans
• Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean
• Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental
• Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
• Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichaeans
• On Baptism, Against the Donatists
• Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta
• Merits and Remission of Sin, and Infant Baptism
• On the Spirit and the Letter
• On Nature and Grace
• On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness
• On the Proceedings of Pelagius
• On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin
• On Marriage and Concupiscence
• On the Soul and its Origin
• Against Two Letters of the Pelagians
• On Grace and Free Will
• On Rebuke and Grace
• The Predestination of the Saints/Gift of Perseverance
• Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount
• The Harmony of the Gospels
• Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament
• Tractates on the Gospel of John
• Homilies on the First Epistle of John
• Soliloquies
• The Enarrations, or Expositions, on the Psalms

If your friend can’t show you with evidence of what he’s saying about Augustine is true, then he has no evidence for what he is saying.

 

[patricius79]

Augustine defended free will in his earlier work, but his position changed in later years. He would not have said that he denied free will in a philosophical sense, but he became convinced that as sinners we lack the ability to choose God and that only the elect are so moved by God as to delight in what is good and persevere in the love of God. This required him to put some caveats on his earlier unqualified defense of free will. In the Reformation, the Protestants typically quoted later Augustine and the Catholics quoted early Augustine!

I need to read the later work of Augustine where he supposedly changed his mind somewhat regarding free will.

I read “On Grace and Free Will” where Augustine strongly defended free will as well as the necessity of grace to be saved. It sounded just like what the Catechism says about the cooperation of free will and God’s grace…

Is there a reasonably short and accessible work of the older Augustine which is supposedly closer to the Reformation’s denial of free will?

In other words, what were these works of the “later Augustine” which Calvin was quoting?

Peace of Jesus and Mary

 

[patricius79]

Also, thanks SteveB. Do you know where Augustine supposedly got closer to denying free will in his writings? Peace of Mary and Jesus

 

[steve_b]

Also, thanks SteveB. Do you know where Augustine supposedly got closer to denying free will in his writings? Peace of Mary and Jesus

Just thinking outloud, I would think If he denied free will in his writings he wouldn’t be a doctor of the Church. To deny free will is contrary to scripture.

For one example
Deuteronomy 30:19 if one’s choice is not free, why even make such a directive? People do choose wrongly.

 

[dmar198]

I need to read the later work of Augustine where he supposedly changed his mind somewhat regarding free will.

I read “On Grace and Free Will” where Augustine strongly defended free will as well as the necessity of grace to be saved. It sounded just like what the Catechism says about the cooperation of free will and God’s grace…

Is there a reasonably short and accessible work of the older Augustine which is supposedly closer to the Reformation’s denial of free will?

In other words, what were these works of the “later Augustine” which Calvin was quoting?

Peace of Jesus and Mary

The article on Augustine at the Catholic Encyclopedia says he never change his views on free will, and they offer two pieces of evidence:

First, in his book Retractions, written at the end of his life to explain where his views had changed over the years, he does not anywhere claim to have changed his views on free will. This would have been important to him because of the long years he spent fighting the Manichaeans to defend free will and the Pelagians to defend predestination. If he had changed his position later, the book Retractions would be where he would explain that, and he does not say anything there about changing his views on free will.

Second, in his last years, he was in controversy with the Semipelagians over his views on free will, and he referred them back to his earlier works to prove that he was orthodox on this point. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that he specifically referred to his answer to Simplician in “Quaestiones Diversae,” a book he wrote in 397, a year (and book) where everybody agrees he defended the same position on free will that appears in On Grace and Free Will.

Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that St. Augustine’s position on free will remained the same in his later years, or at least similar enough that he could refer people to his earlier writings without fearing that they would be misled and without needing to retract anything.

See here for more info: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Augustine_of_Hippo%2C_Saint

 

[patricius79]

Thanks guys

From what texts are Protestants getting their idea that Augustine denied free will in his later years? Thanks

 

[Genesis315]

It is my understanding that, even in a strong Catholic country, it would not be good to prohibit Protestants from assembling for the religious purposes, at least not simply on the grounds that they aren’t Catholic. I base this conclusion on my understanding of the Second Vatican Council: Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties. (Dignitatis Humanae 4) In the document I just cited, Dignitatis Humanae, there is an important qualification in the paragraph above the one I just quoted: “Provided the just demands of public order are observed…”

This provision seems to imply that, if the just demands of public order are violated by a Protestant community as part of its activities, it may be prevented from engaging in those activities. I think the Catechism clarifies this issue in the following sentence: “The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a ‘public order’ conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.” (CCC 2109) That sentence cites Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura 3 for more details, and that document can be read here: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm (scroll to #3)

I know this post is probably starting to get confusing at this point, so let me try to summarize before I continue. Vatican 2 appears to say that all religious communities have a right to build places of worship and preach their faith publicly, “provided the just demands of public order are observed.” The Catechism appears to say that this phrase, “public order,” is not to be interpreted in a positivist or naturalist manner, and cites Quanta Cura 3.

Still with me? Ok, great. So how does Quanta Cura 3 clarify? Well, it appears to condemn the following statement: “[People] should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” Quanta Cura calls this statement “[an] erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls.” (Quanta Cura 3)

Therefore, it seems to me that heretics must be permitted to assemble for religious purposes and preach publicly, but they do not have a right to publicly preach absolutely any idea of their ideas whatever. Does that make sense?

Good explanation. I think the key concept is that public authority exists solely for the common good (cf. St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 54). The right of public authority to limit religious activity therefore can only be justified in relation to public authority’s care for the common good.

Furthermore, a component of the common good is man’s spiritual well-being (St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 57-59). Positivist and naturalist conceptions of the common good do not consider man’s supernatural end (which is why theories of religious liberty founded on them were condemned in the 18th and 19th centuries).

The Church teaches that in general, all the activities of public authority should take into account man’s origin and destiny, as revealed by the true religion–and the CCC notes that history shows this leads to greater liberty, not less:

CCC:

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

This echos what Bl. Pius IX prophetically taught in Quanta Cura:
Quanta Cura:

1. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?

 

[patricius79]

Pleae forgive me if I am still so dull, but i still don’t have a clear , concrete picture of exactly what a Catholic country could legitimately do to limit the free exercise of religion.

My friend is from the Assembly of God and is taking the Enlightenment position of the Founders of America that the state should not coerce in any way unless someone’s innate rights-- such as right to life and property-- are being violated.

He sees religion as a matter of the heart and says that we should never coerce others in religion.

So what would we say in response and what would be some examples of how a predominantly Catholic country might have laws against false religous teachings? I need to get a more concrete picture.

In other words, what heresies or false religious teachinga woiuld be so serious that the state would have to intervene? And why not just let people teach these terrible false things, and simply try to counter them by our own prayer and free speech?

Peace of Mary and Jesus

 

[dmar198]

Pleae forgive me if I am still so dull, but i still don’t have a clear , concrete picture of exactly what a Catholic country could legitimately do to limit the free exercise of religion.

In Spain right now, it is my understanding that the law prohibits Muslim groups from going into Catholic Cathedrals during public visitation hours to stage disruptive public prayers. I think that is a good example of a just limitation on the free exercise of religion.

My friend is from the Assembly of God and is taking the Enlightenment position of the Founders of America that the state should not coerce in any way unless someone’s innate rights-- such as right to life and property-- are being violated.

If I understand Church teaching correctly, that is a perfectly fine way to think about this. If a State limits someone’s religious freedom only where their religious practices involve violating someone’s rights, that seems to me to be a restriction based on the “just demands of public order” mentioned by Vatican II and clarified by the Catechism. Does that make sense?

He sees religion as a matter of the heart and says that we should never coerce others in religion.

Yeah, except when their religion requires them to do something harmful to others. I think your friend and the Church may basically be in agreement about this.

So what would we say in response and what would be some examples of how a predominantly Catholic country might have laws against false religous teachings? I need to get a more concrete picture.

I think the example I gave above, regarding Spain, is a good, concrete example.

In other words, what heresies or false religious teachinga woiuld be so serious that the state would have to intervene?

Well, if they were inciting people to violence, or if their religion involved going into other churches and loudly shouting down the preachers during Sunday services, I think the State would be justified in stopping those practices.

And why not just let people teach these terrible false things, and simply try to counter them by our own prayer and free speech?

I think that if people are teaching false ideas, under normal circumstances we SHOULD just try to counter them by our own prayer and free speech. But if the group in question is disrupting public order and violating individual rights, then I think the State has a responsibility to step in and do something about it. Does that sound reasonable? Because I think that’s all our Church is saying.

 

[patricius79]

Thanks Dmar i am thinking abiut your post.

Also, doesnt this all have a lot to do with how one defines “public order” or “common good”?

How do we define these? They seem to me to be very mysterious terms especially aince they involve salvation or spiritual well being.

I mean, my friend recognizes individual rights. But Im not sure how he feels about “common good”, especially as applied to spiritual well being.

For example, the false aspects or teachings of the methodist religion-- for example, their teaching is in denial of the Eucharist-- harm the common good. But i dont think that means they should be legally penalized

In other words, its still not very clear to me where we “draw the line”, since in America there are so many things which harm the common good but are not illegal. For example, pornography.

Your example about Spain is good. But one could argue that other, more subtle things, harm the common good as much as shouting during a Mass. For example, the way united Methodists also offically make allowances for abortion. Or the way many protestantism teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which has led to so much disagreement and division.

Am I making any sense?