Catholic Apostasy Illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dominikus28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dominikus28

Guest
I have heard that in Muslim countries apostasy is illegal, but I never though that the Church ever made it illegal:

crisismagazine.com/2011/the-church-and-the-jews-in-the-middle-ages
According to Roman law, and therefore canon law, a Christian was forbidden to convert to Judaism.
Click to expand...
My question is, how can this be reconciled with religious liberty and with the claim that the Church was always against forced conversions? If you stop believing in the Catholic faith, how is it any different than not believing it in the first place? So it isn’t a crime not to be Catholic, but once you accept it, you cannot change your mind? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

Can someone please explain this to me? I would like to be able to defend the Church against my atheist friends who bring this up. Or to any sedevacantists who will say ‘religious liberty’ is a heresy. Thanks
 
There have been times in history where the Church held that type of legal authority and could have people arrested (and executed or imprisoned) for various religious crimes.
But, those times are long past and I don’t beleive that the legal authority claimed was ever part of Church doctrine.

As it is now, the Church has no legal authority to regulate or persecute any person for any behavior. In most Moslem countries, religion and government are joined at the hip and whatever religious laws the imams propose are carried out with vigor by the legal authorities.

So, as far as religious liberty goes, as long as you stay far away from Moslem countries, and certain other repressive regimes (e.g. China), you can worship in any manner that you please (or no manner if that pleases you).
 
A few countries still have laws related to the Church though. I believe in Malta it’s illegal to impersonate a priest or religious, with up to a one year prison sentence as punishment.
 
dominikus28 said:
I
crisismagazine.com/2011/the-church-and-the-jews-in-the-middle-ages

According to Roman law, and therefore canon law, a Christian was forbidden to convert to Judaism.
Click to expand...
I’m curious why Crisis Magazine would claim that all Roman law was part of Canon law? I thought Canon law only referred to the laws within the Church.

In any case, Canon law only applies to Catholics. If you convert, then you would no longer be Catholic. The law would only apply until you had converted.

So if the US makes a law that says I cannot become Canadian according to US law, then when I become Canadian, the law no longer applies, so I am not breaking the law.

However…
If the Roman law was not Canon law. Then when one converted, one would still be Roman and still fall under Roman law but not Canon law. So only the Roman law is broken, not the Canon law.

As far as I see, it makes to sense to equate Catholic Canon law with Roman National law. You can be Catholic without being Roman and you can be Roman without being Catholic.
 
Evan said:
I’m curious why Crisis Magazine would claim that all Roman law was part of Canon law? I thought Canon law only referred to the laws within the Church.

In any case, Canon law only applies to Catholics. If you convert, then you would no longer be Catholic. The law would only apply until you had converted.

So if the US makes a law that says I cannot become Canadian according to US law, then when I become Canadian, the law no longer applies, so I am not breaking the law.

However…
If the Roman law was not Canon law. Then when one converted, one would still be Roman and still fall under Roman law but not Canon law. So only the Roman law is broken, not the Canon law.

As far as I see, it makes to sense to equate Catholic Canon law with Roman National law. You can be Catholic without being Roman and you can be Roman without being Catholic.
Click to expand...
A baptised Catholic is a Catholic forever. There is no such thing as a former Catholic or ex-Catholic. No matter how you feel, what you think or do, even if you walk away from the Church you are still a Catholic.
There are only two types of Catholic - those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.
 
thistle said:
A baptised Catholic is a Catholic forever. There is no such thing as a former Catholic or ex-Catholic. No matter how you feel, what you think or do, even if you walk away from the Church you are still a Catholic.
There are only two types of Catholic - those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
I dispute this point wholeheartedly. Can a group decide that even though a person wants to be a member of a group that they are not? Absolutely! With rare exception any private group can place barriers on entrance into it, and can elect to remove someone as a member.

Can a group decide that even though a person has disassociated himself from a group that he is still a member? Of course not! Except for maybe a dancing gang (“When you’re a Jet/You’re a Jet all the way”) a group can’t force a person to retain membership or alliance with it.

Would anyone who believes this say the same thing about another faith? If someone converted from Islam to Catholicism, would it be right to say that person is really still a Muslim?
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
I dispute this point wholeheartedly. Can a group decide that even though a person wants to be a member of a group that they are not? Absolutely! With rare exception any private group can place barriers on entrance into it, and can elect to remove someone as a member.

Can a group decide that even though a person has disassociated himself from a group that he is still a member? Of course not! Except for maybe a dancing gang (“When you’re a Jet/You’re a Jet all the way”) a group can’t force a person to retain membership or alliance with it.

Would anyone who believes this say the same thing about another faith? If someone converted from Islam to Catholicism, would it be right to say that person is really still a Muslim?
Click to expand...
Different story. Baptism leaves an indelible spiritual mark which can never be removed no matter what you think or do.
Then of course Christianity is the only true religion and the Catholic Church is the only Church established by Christ.

I repeat that once baptised as a Catholic you remain a Catholic forever.
 
thistle said:
Different story. Baptism leaves an indelible spiritual mark which can never be removed no matter what you think or do.
Then of course Christianity is the only true religion and the Catholic Church is the only Church established by Christ.

I repeat that once baptised as a Catholic you remain a Catholic forever.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this belief doesn’t mean the church is still claiming people who have left Catholicism as members.
 
So it wouldn’t be immoral for a state to make apostasy illegal? It would most definitely be impractical and imprudent based on the fact that no country is uniformly Catholic, but if it was, then it wouldn’t be immoral to make Catholicism the only legal religion. Or would it be immoral? If so, that would mean that teaching has changed.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
If the church claims to speak on behalf of X members, but in actuality X includes those who have left the church, then there is a problem.
Click to expand...
I assume you also object to the application of laws to those who choice to live outside of them as “a problem” as well. Such as criminals who object to being subject to their state’s laws and object to being subject to international law.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
I assume you also object to the application of laws to those who choice to live outside of them as “a problem” as well. Such as criminals who object to being subject to their state’s laws and object to being subject to international law.
Click to expand...
You would assume quite incorrectly. I’m not sure exactly how you got from my statement to yours but let me rephrase mine 🙂

My statement was pondering if the church claims they have more members than they actually do using thistle’s reasoning that it’s impossible to be an ex-Catholic.

So for example, let’s say New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to pass a law that Catholics would find objectionable. Archbishop Dolan issues a press release saying that the law should not go into effect as it would go against the beliefs of X hundred thousand Catholics in the city. Now if the church believes that it’s impossible for someone who was a Catholic to cease being one then when they claim there are so many Catholics in a city/nation/world do they include those who have divested themselves from the RCC? If so, then there is a problem. If so, the church would be claiming to speak for those that do not want to be associated with them.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
You would assume quite incorrectly. I’m not sure exactly how you got from my statement to yours but let me rephrase mine 🙂

My statement was pondering if the church claims they have more members than they actually do using thistle’s reasoning that it’s impossible to be an ex-Catholic.

So for example, let’s say New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to pass a law that Catholics would find objectionable. Archbishop Dolan issues a press release saying that the law should not go into effect as it would go against the beliefs of X hundred thousand Catholics in the city. Now if the church believes that it’s impossible for someone who was a Catholic to cease being one then when they claim there are so many Catholics in a city/nation/world do they include those who have divested themselves from the RCC? If so, then there is a problem. If so, the church would be claiming to speak for those that do not want to be associated with them.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. In the scenario you presented the Church would not be claiming to speak for those who have abandoned their faith (in other words the Church isn’t going to inflate the numbers by including them; the numbers used for your scenario would most likely be based on active member numbers). The Church doesn’t have its own version of the Social Security Admin and Census Bureau to keep track of everyone.

What Thistle was pointing out was that once Catholic, you’re always Catholic and therefore subject to Canon law (he was correcting the poster he quoted). Canon law applies to Catholics, it does not apply to non-Catholics.
 
dominikus28 said:
I have heard that in Muslim countries apostasy is illegal, but I never though that the Church ever made it illegal:

crisismagazine.com/2011/the-church-and-the-jews-in-the-middle-ages

My question is, how can this be reconciled with religious liberty and with the claim that the Church was always against forced conversions? If you stop believing in the Catholic faith, how is it any different than not believing it in the first place? So it isn’t a crime not to be Catholic, but once you accept it, you cannot change your mind? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

Can someone please explain this to me? I would like to be able to defend the Church against my atheist friends who bring this up. Or to any sedevacantists who will say ‘religious liberty’ is a heresy. Thanks
Click to expand...
Read Libertas (papal enyclical). It’s very informative. Also read at least the beginning of Dignitatis Humanae.

In short, religious liberty is freedom of conscience to choose your religion within just limits. What constitutes “within just limits” is up to interpretation. Because of modern day circumstances, the Church has said that the state should respect all religions. That’s not because of a change in doctrine, but because of the prudential judgment of the Church. The prudential judgment influenced the declaration that in the present day all religions should be recognized. Ideally, only Catholicism is recognized, but the reason the Church isn’t calling Europe back to a confessional state (paraphrasing Ecclesia in Europa) is because of secularism and lack of Catholicity (at least that’s my understanding).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top