Does a Catholic country have justification to ban proselytizing by members of other religions?

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

When we think of countries we tend to think of the modern nation states. But what if we were talking about a country that consists of one hundred Catholic families who founded the country to follow the Catholic Faith. Would such a country be obliged to allow other religions to come and proselytize? Would it be obliged to allow children born of the original families to proselytize for another faith?

Jesus desires to grant conversion of heart to individuals in every generation. The Apostles gave their lives for this. Such a country in your example is already non-Catholic if it doesn’t allow the freedom described. A bunch of people may have originally set up in a certain location to “get themselves off to a good start” but must place everybody else in God’s good hands.

Each country must set its own laws on immigration and visiting, hopefully just ones. Likewise intellectual freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of association. Since much “proselytising” is at a purely personal level of private acquaintance it would not be right for Catholics to claim to interfere once young people have left the age of parental responsibility and left the parental home.

To judge from the huge amount of people that drop out of those cults and sects that are not fear-based, being “proselytised” is often a temporary phase many of us have passed through anyway, “enriched” by the experience!

Scriptural enjoinders to adhere to truth (and spare no effort discovering it more and more) are addressed to the Church members, while relations with non-members are to be characterised by evangelising (if we ever discover what that is ) and goodwill, as per all the Apostles’ epistles.

Jesus said “Our kingdom is not of this world” and “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

Barricade and Exnihilo, convinced yet?

 

[Della]

No, but negating the Church’s influence wasn’t motivated by the state being too enmeshed with the Church, but rather with modernistic men turning their backs on the Church and attacking her for the weaknesses of some of her members in order to overthrow her influence. Man does not want to be governed by natural law, not when it inhibits his carnal desires. The modern world has tossed out natural law, which the Church upholds but since she refuses to back down from teaching it, she must be destroyed in order to make it possible for men to do as they please. Instead of “throwing off chains of religion” all they’ve done sold themselves to sin and despair. In time people will see this, and then it will be another epiphany of faith in our apostate countries.

 

[Michael96]

That’s only true if there is no certain truth in any religion. But there is. As I wrote, the Church has not spoken on every subject nor made pronouncements on things outside her sphere of authority, because that’s not what Christ commissioned her to do…

And so you become trapped in a world that supports itself simply by saying “we are right because we are right”.

Is that really a sensible place to be? Shouldn’t all propositions be open to verification and so also open to being proved wrong?

Can you respond in other way other than to say, albeit with a certain amount of circumlocution, “we are right because we are right”.

Thankfully with each generation that passes positions based on authority are diminishing. And that is largely, if not wholly, due to the visible success of science which takes a different approach - that all genuine knowledge is open to correction. Assertions count for nothing in science - which may at first appear to be a worrying place to be but then you learn that such a position actually really opens us up to learning.

If we can’t support our Christian faith with more than assertions then it will, deservedly, continue its decline in the more educated countries.

But of course you’ll think I am wrong, because you are simply right

But I have had my say. I shall leave it there.

God bless you Della.

Michael

 

[Della]

And so you become trapped in a world that supports itself simply by saying “we are right because we are right”.

Is that really a sensible place to be? Shouldn’t all propositions be open to verification and so also open to being proved wrong?

Can you respond in other way other than to say, albeit with a certain amount of circumlocution, “we are right because we are right”.

Thankfully with each generation that passes positions based on authority are diminishing. And that is largely, if not wholly, due to the visible success of science which takes a different approach - that all genuine knowledge is open to correction. Assertions count for nothing in science - which may at first appear to be a worrying place to be but then you learn that such a position actually really opens us up to learning.

If we can’t support our Christian faith with more than assertions then it will, deservedly, continue its decline in the more educated countries.

But of course you’ll think I am wrong, because you are simply right

But I have had my say. I shall leave it there.

God bless you Della.

Michael

I can’t believe you even read my posts. I nowhere assert that we are right because we are right. I gave cogent reasons which you apparently wish to ignore. It means nothing to me if you won’t even consider my words. I am finished discussing this with you–which is off topic, in any case. I will not respond further.

 

[HelenRose]

When we think of countries we tend to think of the modern nation states. But what if we were talking about a country that consists of one hundred Catholic families who founded the country to follow the Catholic Faith. Would such a country be obliged to allow other religions to come and proselytize? Would it be obliged to allow children born of the original families to proselytize for another faith?

Yes. Providing that force is not used and books are not destroyed.

 

[St_Francis]

And so you become trapped in a world that supports itself simply by saying “we are right because we are right”.

Is that really a sensible place to be? Shouldn’t all propositions be open to verification and so also open to being proved wrong?

Can you respond in other way other than to say, albeit with a certain amount of circumlocution, “we are right because we are right”.

Thankfully with each generation that passes positions based on authority are diminishing. And that is largely, if not wholly, due to the visible success of science which takes a different approach - that all genuine knowledge is open to correction. Assertions count for nothing in science - which may at first appear to be a worrying place to be but then you learn that such a position actually really opens us up to learning.

If we can’t support our Christian faith with more than assertions then it will, deservedly, continue its decline in the more educated countries.

But of course you’ll think I am wrong, because you are simply right

But I have had my say. I shall leave it there.

God bless you Della.

Michael

You seem to be saying that the faith you claim in your description bases its claims to teaching truth on its own say-so.

The Catholic Church’s teaching are based on truths taught and protected by God. We don’t believe Church teachings are true because *we *say so, but because God, Who knows more than we do, said so. What other religious group can say that?

The knowledge God gives us is called Revelation: revealed knowledge. We could not figure those things out on our own, and we believe them because, “Who can neither deceive nor be deceived,” taught it to us.

Other knowledge: philosophy, natural science, etc., is subject to the processes you mention, but revealed knowledge can not be.

 

[djames99]

Suppose we have a country that is both vast majority Catholic in terms of its population, and gives the Catholic faith a privileged position in government as its laws are rooted in a Catholic understanding of morality.

Happily, that would be by the wishes of it’s founder, Christ. If everyone is doing what Christ instructs, then society is benefited by the moral example of the community that he instructed. (In fact, Catholicism is also the buffer against chaos. Atheists,Protestants and all the other religions can thank the moral code of Catholicism for establishing the peaceful environment that permitted their podium.) Whether or not the Church should then make its’ cause prominent and outward in a civil institution context would not be necessary. The province of Quebec in the late part of the 1800’s until the 1960’s was overwhelmingly Catholic, and you would not find a happier Jehova’s Witness with a better breeding ground to disseminate his dogma. Under all this umbrella, there was still partisan debates and a healthy electoral system flourishing. The Jewish community did very well in that province also, with commercial businesses flourishing. The relative peace demonstrates Divine morality in action.

Would such a state have a moral justification for prohibiting members of other religions from proselytizing publicly?

It would be in conflict of interest. It cannot at the same time, be a civil institution to members of a religious institution. It is not the Church’s place, nor is it necessary. But she would dearly wish that the collective formulate moral policy. By degrees of exposure to the devout Catholic daily life, the population would be exposed to reason,persuasion,works by example, and a life of virtue shown by it’s members to convince others of the truth. The Church is the teacher to the student civil authority. (Mater et Magistra)

 

[Genesis315]

The answer to the OP is yes. The key is the “due limits” which DH mentions, which may vary according to the circumstances. The CCC explains these limits:

2109 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.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3
40 DH 7 § 3

Note, there are limits. These limits are not positivist (they are based on objective truth) and they are not naturalist (they take into account supernatural, religious truth). They are based on the common good, which according to the Church includes man’s spiritual well being as well as the peaceful unity of a society.

St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
57. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)

1. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)
2. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

A completely Catholic country would certainly be justified in forbidding proselytizing that threatened to destroy that unity, especially since the introduction of the false religion would not aid the salvation of anyone. That would harm the common good. In a more pluralistic society, there is more justification for allowing broader freedoms to all, since forbidding them would not likely advance the common good, but might instead harm it.

Note, the two documents in addition to DH cited by CCC 2109 deal with these very issues and harshly condemned expanded freedom of religion in places where it would destroy the unity of society and the religious foundations of the social order.