On burning heretics

[sw85]

My, my - it seem that we have crossed paths again my friend How lovely to see you again! Are you saying that a “Catholic” society would have the right to prosecute, convict and even execute people for their own private beliefs?

You too, mate!

No, I am not talking about executing people for privately held beliefs but protecting society from aggressive and unjust heresy. I have explicitly said that private dissent from Church teachings poses no threat to society and need not be punished. I have even said that when public heresy is repented of, there is no need to punish it.

Simply put, I have said that when heresy is aggressively preached and advertised, it poses a danger to the moral consensus of society and the state is within its rights to suppress it. There is nothing theologically objectionable about this; this right and duty is explicitly articulated even in Dignitatis Humanae, a document widely known as one of the most theologically liberal to come out of the Vatican.

If so I find this truly abhorrent and an offense to the freedom of the will and the sanctity of the human conscience, which none should be allowed to compel with force and violence. However I recognise that you might not be including “heretics” in that category (I hope).

Correct. I endorse religious establishment but consistent with DH recognize that this entails a certain tolerance for theologically false but morally inoffensive religious worship.

I am not talking about punishing people merely for using condoms, but punishing those who aggressively and scandalously undermine the magisterium of the Church.

Combatting heresy is a matter for the ecclesiastical, religious sphere only not the secular sphere. Heresy cannot possibly be a “crime” under secular, positive law.

I am sorry but this is simply flatly contrary to Church teachings on the matter. The state has both the right and duty to suppress false teachings which endeavor to scandalize the consciences of the faithful and induce them to error and sin.

It is little more than incitement to rebellion – which most certainly is a crime – except the sovereign being rebelled against here is higher than any earthly or temporal one!

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I understand that this was directed to sw85, but I am interested in what you say.

My, my - it seem that we have crossed paths again my friend How lovely to see you again! Are you saying that a “Catholic” society would have the right to prosecute, convict and even execute people for their own private beliefs? If so I find this truly abhorrent and an offense to the freedom of the will and the sanctity of the human conscience, which none should be allowed to compel with force and violence. However I recognise that you might not be including “heretics” in that category (I hope).

The primary problem I have with this response is your saying “private beliefs”. Because the main reason for executing a heretic is not to punish him for his sins - but to stop the spread of that heresy after all other means have been exhausted.

Prior to the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church - as a general rule - did not allow states to suppress ‘heresy’ using intimidation or execution. Such punishments had many ecclesiastical opponents, so such a system did not exist in Catholic theology. To provide you with an example, in 350 the first execution for heresy took place (it was orchestrated by secular authorities) but the decision to execute the person was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, by the Pope, St Ambrose and St Martin of Tours. Most theologians saw punishment for ‘heresy’ as therepuetic not punitive - Christians believed that you could not force somebody to change their mind. God had given them freewill after all. Killing a heretic was viewed by the Catholic Church as a defeat; the sinner would be lost for all eternity and Christians would have to live on with the guilt of that person’s damnation forevermore. To elucidate the viewpoint of this period, John Chrysostom (d407) one of the greatest of the Church Fathers wrote, “To kill a heretic is to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime”.

May I ask if this rule was written down?Becaause I know that quite a few called for the execution of Arius because he had a wide following and he threatened the Catholic Church by using the Emperor in the early 300’s and even led to the deposing of Saint Athanasius upon his utter refusal to reconcile the heretical Arius (See this). Though the loss of the soul of one soul is absolutely and utterly saddening and deflating, the loss of many souls because of that one soul (who would most likely be lost anyway) is far worse. So again, I reiterate Aquinas - if some sheep in a flock are mangy and diseased, you remove them from the flock and cast them away so they cannot infect the rest of the flock.

Combatting heresy is a matter for the ecclesiastical, religious sphere only not the secular sphere. Heresy cannot possibly be a “crime” under secular, positive law.

We must remember that this goes hand in hand with a Catholic state. By this I mean a state that has denounced the notion of the separation of Church and state and is not, truly, secular. I keep thinking of France and Spain, but especially the latter.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Vouthon]

Simply put, I have said that when heresy is aggressively preached and advertised, it poses a danger to the moral consensus of society and the state is within its rights to suppress it. There is nothing theologically objectionable about this; this right and duty is explicitly articulated even in Dignitatis Humanae, a document widely known as one of the most theologically liberal to come out of the Vatican.

I still do not understand why you think that “heresy” - which is a religious “offense” if that is the correct way of describing it - should be dealt with by secular authorirties? I also do not see anything in Dignitas Humanae which would sanction, in any way, the right of the state to suppress “heresy”. Certainly executing “heretics” is not acceptable. John Chrysostom explained that this was an unforgiveable crime. And we cannot compel people to believe as we believe.

“Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith”

• (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633)

“…Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition…”

• (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090 –1153)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

This is the line of thinking that extremist Muslims take. It is one thing to take up a sword against someone coming at you with a sword, it is quite another to take up a sword against someone coming at you with words, so to say.

If someone isn’t going to murder you but you know they will murder other people is it moral to stop them by whatever means necessary? The heretic murders the soul which is in a way infinitely more precious than the person’s life.

 

[Vouthon]

I understand that this was directed to sw85, but I am interested in what you say.

Dear Pius,

I am pleased to meet you

May I ask if this rule was written down?

All I know is that it was the “rule” so to speak in the Early Church, and indeed in Catholic theology prior to the 12th century. The emperor Maximus ordered that Priscillian, bishop of Avila, found guilty of heresy and sorcery, be put to death in 385 AD in accordance to the appeal of the Spanish bishops. St. Martin of Tours, St. Ambrose, and St. Leo strenuously reprimanded the Spanish bishops for doing, what they called, “such a reprehensible thing”. You could deprive the “heretic” of the liberty of speech, if it posed a significant threat, but that was all - the state could not execute them as this would take away all possiblity of penance and would be tantamount to damning a soul in the eyes of God. It was considered a crime. St. John Chrysostom, for example, taugt that a heretic could be deprived of liberty of speech and that their assemblies could be dissolved, but proclaimed that “to put a heretic to death would be to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime” (Homilies, 46: 1). St. Hilary of Poitiers protested the use of force against heretics in his region, contending that the severe Old Testament sanctions were replaced by the gentle laws of Christ (Liber Contra Auxentium, IV). St. Augustine, also repudiated such use of force against the Manichean heretics and desired to win them over through charitable preaching and dialogue. Later on, Waso, the Bishop of Liege urged against using force upon the Carthari, arguing much as St. John Chrysostom had seven centuries earlier. Peter Cantor, the most learned man of this age, expressed the prevailing sentiment within the Church leadership: “Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, ‘A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid,’ he certainly did not say, ‘Kill him.’ Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death’” (De investigatione Antichrist 3:42). St. Bernard put down the law, in direct opposition to the mobs, “Fides suadenda, non imponenda.” Men are to be won to the Faith, not by violence, but by persuasion. He censured the princes, arguing that “the obstinate were to be excommunicated and if necessary, kept in confinement for the safety of others” (O’Brien, p. 15). The views of Peter Cantor and St. Bernard were ratified by a whole series of synods during that time: Rheims (1049) under Leo IX, Tolouse (1119) under Callistus II, and the Lateran Council of 1139. The execution of heretics during this period must be considered the arbitrary action of secular rulers and the fanatical mob violence. They were not the result of Church law or authority.

You must also see this in terms of the Early Church’s utter abhorrence for capital punishment and the taking of lives in general. That is a different debate of course, and the Church Fathers did not “dictate” that states could not execute, but they did discourage it.

**“We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.” – Saint Athenagoras of Athens (aprox 180 AD), Church Father, A Plea for the Christians 35

"When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it lawful to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.” – Lactantius, Church Father (aprox 240-317 AD), Divine Institutes 6.20

“During the first few centuries after Jesus’ execution, Christians were instructed to not participate in the execution of a criminal, to not attend public executions, and even to not lay a charge against a person if it might possibly eventually result in their execution. Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr and other Christian writers who discussed capital punishment during the first three centuries after Jesus’ execution were absolutely opposed to it.” - VIEWS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY**

(continued…)

 

[sw85]

I still do not understand why you think that “heresy” - which is a religious “offense” if that is the correct way of describing it - should be dealt with by secular authorirties? I also do not see anything in Dignitas Humanae which would sanction, in any way, the right of the state to suppress “heresy”. Certainly executing “heretics” is not acceptable. John Chrysostom explained that this was an unforgiveable crime. And we cannot compel people to believe as we believe.

“Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith”

• (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633)

“…Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition…”

• (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090 –1153)

See Dignitatis Humanae:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

In other words, men have a duty to worship God as Catholics, and society itself has such a duty as well. This is meaningful: society has a duty which exists IN ADDITION TO the duty of each individual, meaning there is a duty which transcends the individuals of duties to worship God. This implies that the state has the duty to recognize the Catholic Church as the one true church.

Now if the church is the one true church, why should the state not take it seriously? Salvation occurs through the church; heresy is an attack on the church; therefore heresy is an attack on the church. You are, I think, completely swallowing the modern separation of church and state, which is an artificial and unnatural thing. The church and the state are meant to be in an organic harmony, the former consecrating the authority of the latter and the latter protecting and defending the former.

Neither of the quotes you provide seem applicable. As I have said, I am not talking about forcibly converting anyone – involuntary baptisms are invalid anyway. I am talking about protecting society from unjust aggressors.

 

[Vouthon]

Though the loss of the soul of one soul is absolutely and utterly saddening and deflating, the loss of many souls because of that one soul (who would most likely be lost anyway) is far worse. So again, I reiterate Aquinas - if some sheep in a flock are mangy and diseased, you remove them from the flock and cast them away so they cannot infect the rest of the flock.

That is part of utilitarianism, the “greatest happiness to the greatest number” and it is completely opposed by the Catholic Church and cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrine. Utilitarianism advocates the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Catholicism has condemned it. You can never murder or maltreat an individual in pursuit of the common good. You must always respect the integrity and rights of the person. Thus the view you have espoused would, in my humble opinion, constitute real “heresy” - the heresy of the atheistic regimes of Communism and Nazism during the bloodbath of the 20th century, when for example in Nazi Germany the government determined that the Jewish minority had to be eliminated for the “good” of the Aryan majority. Catholics do not quantify human life by numbers. Every life is sacred, from the womb to the grave and one person’s life is not to be accounted as of lesser importance than the lives of 300 people.

Christ told us that even the “hairs on our head” are all counted for, and that if one sparrow falls to the ground, it does not escape the loving notice of God.

Peace out brother

 

[Vouthon]

See Dignitatis Humanae:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

Uh-huh, and where exactly does this amount to the sanctioning of state-sponsored suppression/execution of heretics - the latter of which I have already proven as being out of touch with “traditional” Catholic dogma? That quote is merely saying that all people and all nations on earth, which are collectives of people, have a moral duty to seek out truth and embrace the Catholic Faith. It nowhere suggests that states have a divine right to criminalize heresy or suppress heretics.

You are reading waaaay too much into this, and investing the document with - in my humble opinon - your own beliefs on the matter. You are straining a gnat and milking an udder for more than its worth I think

Sorry…

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Dear Pius,

I am pleased to meet you

The pleasure is mine.

That is part of utilitarianism, the “greatest happiness to the greatest number” and it is completely opposed by the Catholic Church and cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrine. Utilitarianism advocates the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Catholicism has condemned it. You can never murder or maltreat an individual in pursuit of the common good. You must always respect the integrity and rights of the person. Thus the view you have espoused would, in my humble opinion, constitute real “heresy” - the heresy of the atheistic regimes of Communism and Nazism during the bloodbath of the 20th century, when for example in Nazi Germany the government determined that the Jewish minority had to be eliminated for the “good” of the Aryan majority. Catholics do not quantify human life by numbers. Every life is sacred, from the womb to the grave and one person’s life is not to be accounted as of lesser importance than the lives of 300 people.

Christ told us that even the “hairs on our head” are all counted for, and that if one sparrow falls to the ground, it does not escape the loving notice of God.

Firstly, I don’t see how you can compare Aquinas to that of “the heresy of the atheistic regimes of Communism and Nazism”. I find that a bit strange and I might need you to elaborate upon that point. I was not saying one life is less than another, and neither did Aquinas. I was talking about the preservation of souls who would have otherwise have been damned because of a scandalous heretic’s teachings. I am still hung up on the comparing Aquinas (or me) to Nazi Germany. And

I also don’t understand how it is utilitarianism because, again, I never said one life was less than another. I wasn’t even talking about the overall happiness of the Faithful so I’m quite unsure where you got that from.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Vouthon]

The pleasure is mine

My dear brother

You might want to check the previous page, where I replied to the first part of your post!

 

[Vouthon]

Firstly, I don’t see how you can compare Aquinas to that of “the heresy of the atheistic regimes of Communism and Nazism”. I find that a bit strange and I might need you to elaborate upon that point. I was not saying one life is less than another, and neither did Aquinas. I was talking about the preservation of souls who would have otherwise have been damned because of a scandalous heretic’s teachings. I am still hung up on the comparing Aquinas (or me) to Nazi Germany. And

I also don’t understand how it is utilitarianism because, again, I never said one life was less than another. I wasn’t even talking about the overall happiness of the Faithful so I’m quite unsure where you got that from.

~ Pius :knight1:

Dear Pius,

Sorry, I was not comparing you or St Thomas to Nazi Germany Forgive me if it sounded that way. It is 2 o’clock at night (well AM lol) in the UK, and I’m writing quickly. Lets put it down to that!

My point is that I do not think it is legitimate for a state to execute a “heretic” for the greater good of the Catholic faithful. Their faith should in the first place be strong enough to withstand the onslaught of heresy without the use of force. It is a matter reserved only for the Church, which has the right to issue excommunications, to warn the faithful etc.

It is not a matter for the state, as heresy is spiritual, to do with denial of revealed truths. It is not physically harming other people. Yes it can harm souls, but the spiritual and the hearts of men is the jurisdiction of the Church alone, not the state.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

My dear brother

You might want to check the previous page, where I replied to the first part of your post!

I saw it, but I posted that post because that seemed first priority to me as I was being compared to a nazi. I am still reading and going over the first part.

 

[Vouthon]

I saw it, but I posted that post because that seemed first priority to me as I was being compared to a nazi. I am still reading and going over the first part.

My apologies, sincerely. I did not intend to compare your good self with a Nazi! I asure you!

I really must be tired tonight In fact I’m going to bed soon. I am sorry for offending you unintentionally!

I was trying to make a point, not a personal insult on your good character!

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Dear Pius,

Sorry, I was not comparing you or St Thomas to Nazi Germany Forgive me if it sounded that way. It is 2 o’clock at night (well AM lol) in the UK, and I’m writing quickly. Lets put it down to that!

My point is that I do not think it is legitimate for a state to execute a “heretic” for the greater good of the Catholic faithful. Their faith should in the first place be strong enough to withstand the onslaught of heresy without the use of force. It is a matter reserved only for the Church, which has the right to issue excommunications, to warn the faithful etc.

It is not a matter for the state, as heresy is spiritual, to do with denial of revealed truths. It is not physically harming other people. Yes it can harm souls, but the spiritual and the hearts of men is the jurisdiction of the Church alone, not the state.

You are writing very quickly (but efficiently, as well).

The main problem I see is that the State would be Catholic - again like Spain (under the monarchy-not Franco). I am inclined to agree with SW in that it is the State’s duty to do as such. Remember that the Church and State would be a bit intertwined and connected (especially if it was a Papal State).

~ Pius :knight1:

Please excuse the last post - I now know you weren’t comparing me or Aquinas to a nazi

 

[sw85]

Uh-huh, and where exactly does this amount to the sanctioning of state-sponsored suppression/execution of heretics -

If the state has a duty to recognize the Catholic Church has the one true faith then it follows that it has the duty to protect that faith from those who would seek to undermine it.

the latter of which I have already proven as being out of touch with “traditional” Catholic dogma?

With due respect, what you did was provide two quotes on an irrelevant subject. You have not pointed to dogma at all.

That quote is merely saying that all people and all nations on earth, which are collectives of people, have a moral duty to seek out truth and embrace the Catholic Faith. It nowhere suggests that states have a divine right to criminalize heresy or suppress heretics.

If Pope Paul VI were using “societies” to mean “individuals,” it would have been unnecessary for him to say “individuals and societies.” Clearly he is implying an obligation which is NOT reducible to the obligations of individuals.

 

[Vouthon]

With due respect, what you did was provide two quotes on an irrelevant subject. You have not pointed to dogma at all…

I am saying this with reference to my reply to our friend Pius, on the previous page, where I went into the issue of “execution” of heretics in considerably more depth upon him asking me

 

[Vouthon]

If the state has a duty to recognize the Catholic Church has the one true faith then it follows that it has the duty to protect that faith from those who would seek to undermine it.

A moral duty to seek the truth of the Catholic Faith does not presuppose state-sponsored persecution of heretics in my opinion And I’m not certain of your definition of “societies”, however even if you are correct, this says nothing about how one is too treat heretics, I am sorry. You cannot deduce such a thing from this statement.

And as I explained to you on another thread, you make the asumption that separation of church and state is necessarily a “bad thing”. It isn’t. The form in the US actually works in my opinion, whereas the French model doesn’t.

I quoted this to you on the democracy thread, and I’ll quote it again:

“…The Catholic Church is eager to share the richness of the Gospel’s social message, for it enlivens hearts with a hope for the fulfilment of justice and a love that makes all men and women truly brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. She carries out this mission fully aware of the respective autonomy and competence of Church and State. Indeed, we may say that the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions…”

• Pope Benedict XVI, Papal Address to Philippine Ambassador, 2008

The Pope’s address is consistent with ideas he’s been proposing for a while now. In “The Salt of the Earth” (1997), he said that “separation is ultimately a primordial Christian legacy and also a decisive factor for freedom.”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

A couple quick thoughts

1. I am grateful that CAF permits the expression of controversial and possibly ‘heretical’ views. Otherwise, I’m quite sure that my postings would have been banned a long time ago. The Church needs honest, open dialogue. I am old enough to remember when the Index was still enforced. I would try to get a controversial book in a Catholic college library, and it often wasn’t there - even great books. If it was there it was ‘caged’, and to see it I had to get permission from a priest. Thank God those days are behind us.

** 2. Absolutely nothing justifies or ever justified burning heretics!** The whole concept is obscene. I’m shocked that there are posters who defend such a vile and evil practice. The notion that there should be ‘no freedom’ to believe error is scary or worse.

** 3. I find no evidence in the Bible that Mary Magdalene was the woman in the New Testament about to be stoned**. In fact, I think that the popular notion that Mary Magdalene had been a prostitute has been refuted by many reputable scholars. Some Pope (I forget which one) popularized this error centuries ago.

** 4. Much of Islamic law reflects Old Testament law much more so than the Sermon on the Mount.** Re-read, for example, Ex. 22:18, 20 - kill witches and kill any who worship a false God. Or, parts of Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23. A man actually could sell his daughter! Wow! This stoning to death in Islam seems to have been taken from the Torah. Jesus, of course, said: “You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you…” By the way, have you been following news out of Israel about Orthodox Jews trying to force women to sit in the back of buses, harrassng others because they are immodestly dressed, etc?

** 5. So, evil means don't justify striving toward good ends?** I've wondered about that over the years. As a college student I hitchhiked across western Europe soon after World War II and saw the horrendous destruction, especially in such German cities as Dusseldorf, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, Berlin, etc. What an eye-opener! It just about made me into an overnight pacifist. How many millions was it - 50 million or more, mostly civilians - who were slaughtered during that war? I still haven't resolved my feeling on this question. The goal - defeating Hitler - certainly was admirable. Did that goal justify our means?

** God bless everybody**. No exceptions. Let us make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Matt. 25:31ff. A reading that reminds us what priorities lie at the very heart of the gospel.

1. I am too. This is a site for dialogue, intended to bring people into understanding of the Catholic faith. If it didn’t permit heretical views, it wouldn’t be doing a good job of letting others understand the Faith.
2. (Assuming you are referring to the syllabus of errors) I think you misunderstand what it is saying. But… And I will say that under very extreme circumstances capital punishment for heretics should('ve) be(en) ok. (I don’t know about burning–the Church has always condemned torture…)
3. Blame the Pope without any evidence.
4. I agree.
5. No. We could’ve taken a better way to defeating Hitler and Japan. Like not attacking innocent civilians, especially Hiroshima.
6. Yes! Absolutely. A bridge to the Truth.

 

[Roy5]

Gosh, sw85, I can’t believe your’re a Christian American. As a Christian you surely would not have such a embittered attitude toward others (“Do unto others…” - remember that one?). As an American you surely would know that the Constitution recognizes religious freedom as a key part of the 1st amendment. (Maybe you aren’t an American.)

Now, in my posting #155 I was responding briefly to a variety of other postings, in addition to your own, so your refrain to the effect that my comments were irrelevant is irrelevant.

 I'm trying hard to be civil but I personally would have to lump people who believe in oppressing all non-Catholics because of their 'heresies' as seriously infected with the virus that seemed to infect such systems as fascism, nazism and communism. No diseenters allowed! Various radical Islamists have such a mindset also. 

 With all of its faults, I will opt for democracy anytime. God bless America! God bless religious freedom!.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

See Dignitatis Humanae:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

In other words, men have a duty to worship God as Catholics, and society itself has such a duty as well. This is meaningful: society has a duty which exists IN ADDITION TO the duty of each individual, meaning there is a duty which transcends the individuals of duties to worship God. This implies that the state has the duty to recognize the Catholic Church as the one true church.

All correct.

Now if the church is the one true church, why should the state not take it seriously? Salvation occurs through the church; heresy is an attack on the church; therefore heresy is an attack on the church. You are, I think, completely swallowing the modern separation of church and state, which is an artificial and unnatural thing. The church and the state are meant to be in an organic harmony, the former consecrating the authority of the latter and the latter protecting and defending the former.

Neither of the quotes you provide seem applicable. As I have said, I am not talking about forcibly converting anyone – involuntary baptisms are invalid anyway. I am talking about protecting society from unjust aggressors.

You are correct by saying the Church and state are mean to be in an organic harmony. However, the fact remains that not all people are what they are meant to be (i.e Christian/Catholic). And because of this, it is hard for the state to be completely united with the Church (e.g no separation of Church and state). Although it is necessary for a state with the majority of the population Catholic to have the official religion as Catholicism, that doesn’t always happen (because of sin). At the same time, it is best if the Church and state are separated in a state where the majority of people are non-Catholic or non-Christian, because there is no point. (I have a feeling I’m preaching to the choir .)