Since there’s been a lot of discussion about trying to figure out where Vatican II fits in the scheme of overall Catholic tradition, I’ve been wondering about some of the decrees from other councils that would be hard, impossible, or distasteful to carry out.
Remember that Councils address both custom as well as doctrine. Many customs have been pronounced by an Ecumenical Council which were later dispensed with (for example, in Lateran 2, nuns were prohibited from singing the Divine Office along with monks).
I’m thinking of things like Canon 26 from the Third Lateran Council (Jews and Muslims can’t have Christians for servants
Clearly, there has been much tension in the Church between Christians and Jews (read Shakespeare’s
“The Merchant of Venice” for some historic background of this tension). This particular decree was intended to insure that a non-Christian did not have dominion over a Christian - this could be seen as a sign that the faith of the non-Christian was superior. It is important to note that this decree was not directed towards Jews or Muslims, but toward Christians, who were expected to forsake employment even if their families depended on the income. These days, it would be the same thing as a Catholic forsaking employment at an abortion mill.
and the testimony of a Christian against a Jew is always true
The Christian community believed that the Jews were compelled to close ranks and lie against Christians:
We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema (3 Lateran #26)
I don’t know if this perception of the Jews was true or not, but one thing is for sure - no Christian was under any compulsion to lie on behalf of another. If one believes that Jews MIGHT be dishonest, but Christians are REQUIRED to be honest, then the testimony of the Christian should be preferred. The Church was pretty sure that the Jews of the day conspired against Christians, and the Church acted to protect Her people. And, note that this decree applied only to Jews - not to Muslims (who were apparently regarded as more forthright).
Canon 14 from the First Lateran Council (laymen can’t take things out of churches or convert them to secular uses)
I’m not sure why this would be a hard or distasteful decree to enforce today (and, AFAIK, it is still in effect). The Bible tells of King Belshazzar, who did a similar thing, and died that very day (Daniel 5).
and the part from the Fourth Lateran Council that says that Jews should wear costumes that identify them as Jews.
Well, I don’t know about “costumes.” Jews are prescribed to wear a distinctive dress in their own Law (traditional Jews in modern society still do - and are readily identified as such - as are Amish and Dominicans and Benedictines and priests and bishops and Cardinals). In some areas, Jews disregarded this directive, and apparently engaged in courtship with Christians (which is as problematic as marriage between Jews and Christians). The Church acted to protect young Christians from becoming entangled in a romantic relationship with Jews who were not forthright about their faith:
In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.
4 Lateran #68
Would such attributes be part of the “ideal” Catholic society?
Yes, absolutely. In the “ideal” Catholic society, Catholics would always be absolutely honest (even if their detractors were not), so you could always accept the testimony of a Catholic.
In an “ideal” Catholic society, men would not plunder the Church.
In an “ideal” Catholic society, everyone would be forthright about his/her faith. A Catholic may then make an informed decision about a relationship.
