this wouldn’t be an issue if a constitution declared Christ the King and not the will of the masses. we live in relativistic multicultrual society, of course it wouldn’t work here. but that’s not my point. my point is this document by the vatican needs clarification because there have been catholic states in the past and they were objectively better ordered societies than what we have now.
You are right about one thing: it wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) work here. I am not sure what clarification you need since the Church Fathers are stating it quite clearly: The need for all people to have the right of religious freedom, unfettered by government control (just the opposite of what you desire).
you can’t force someone to believe a religion, but you can try to force them not to be fundamentalists, pagans, muslims, buddists, mormons… etc.
You can? I would think that part would be harder than getting people to believe any religion, since a huge majority do. How could you ever force anyone to NOT be something? How do you possibly control thought, or belief?
then don’t baptize your child against their consent. if you believe that there is to be no coersion in terms of religion then we shouldn’t force our religion on our children and all of those pagans in europe and the americas who were converted shouldn’t have been.
We agree on something. In another thread I was wondering why children 7 years old and up can receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. It seems that the Church is pushing us to baptize and confirm our children before they have the opportunity to think about it and make their own decision. Maybe that is why the Catholic Church loses so many in the late teen years and early 20’s. I also agree that we shouldn’t have “converted” anyone, including all those pagans in Europe and the America’s. Especially when the choice was often convert or die.
do you really believe we would be better off if cortez went to the aztecs or the templars went to the pagans in northern europe and didn’t force them to be catholic? for that matter, constantine forced catholicism on most of the roman empire. i guess he was wrong too.
The AZTECS would have been better off, much better off. For one, they would have lived a little longer and not so many of them would have died violently at the hands of supposed Christians. They had a very developed civilization (although not in the eyes of the Europeans). So did the Incas of Peru, who had a society and governing structure far superior to anything in Europe. So perhaps the invaders in these cases were really the bad guys, seeking riches and power. Think of what history would have been like if they had come as Christians extending the hand of friendship rather than as brutal conquerors brandishing the sword of destruction and death?
As to your reference to the Templars in northern Europe, my histories show that the Templars were centered in the Holy Land and later in parts of Europe. But there is nothing that I found indicating they had anything to do with converting any part of northern Europe to Christianity. Generally, it appears that it was Anglo Saxon missionaries that brought Christianity to those countries. And it doesn’t seem like anyone was forced.
Constantine isn’t the best example either, since there is some argument over when he really converted to Christianity since he wasn’t baptized until just before he died. He may have been using the Church as means to consolidate power and gain support. It is also known that he hedged his bets by showing allegiance to pagan gods along with the Christian God. One good thing he did was to allow FREEDOM of RELIGION, which is something you would apparently not agree with.
I also spent some time reviewing Scripture for any instances of Jesus “forcing” anyone to convert; couldn’t find any. I guess if I were to use anyone as a guide, I would look to Jesus before Cortes, Constantine or the Templars.
One final note: The Gospel reading today (Nov. 1) was the Beatitudes from Matthew; you may want to review and reflect on those.
