Religious coercion

[Duane1966]

of a Protestant return to the Church. In that case the Church would have in the protest a legal basis for regaining its properties and rights. However that may be, the head of the Church could not see so many people definitively lost to the Church without expressing his sorrow and disapproval. A recent writer speculates on what might have happened if Innocent X had been more sagacious, and had abandoned the Catholic cause in those lands in which Protestantism had been a success since the early sixteenth century, and had recognised the loss of Church lands which could in no case be regained. If he had so acted, the author opines, he would not have accustomed the Catholic princes to act without the guidance of the Church in making decisions on ecclesiastical affairs. It would have been possible, too, for him to have exacted more favorable terms for Catholics in Protestant lands. Finally, the writer advances the opinion that, if the Pope had taken a practical view of existing circumstances, he might have had himself elected as arbiter of Europe even with the consent of the Protestants, provided he was willing to abandon "the time-honored theory of world religious unity under hierarchical control."21 Dr. Eckhardt may be serious in maintaining that it was possible for seventeenth-century Protestants to consider the Pope as anything but anti-Christ, but certainly it is impossible that any Pope should ever deny the universal mandate of the Catholic Church or be party to any transaction which permanently separated millions from the Catholic fold. Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, in commenting on Dr. Eckhardt’s ideas, seems far from convinced that the papacy lost its international influence either at Westphalia or later on. He holds that the papacy and the Church to a degree are political institutions: "The political power of the papacy is not without its spiritual advantages. Catholicism is not merely a religion but a civilization and a culture. As such it has advantages over Protestantism, which seeks merely to resist unchristian elements in cultures and civilizations but is never able to set a culture or civilization of its own against the forces of the world."22 Probably Dr. Niebuhr would be willing to admit that the Protestant disadvantages of which he speaks are rooted in the dark pessimism of Luther’s view of man and man’s production. Catholics would not admit that the Church poses as the exclusive mother of cultures and civilizations. If, as in early medieval times, all the burden of civilizing falls to the Church, it is because the secular element is largely incapable of performing its legitimate function. A final reflection. When we consider the peace of Westphalia across the centuries from the viewpoint of diplomacy and international law, it stands out as a monument to the man who, although he died six years before it was signed, was more than any other responsible for it—Cardinal Richelieu. Because of Westphalia, there is some justification for the title “maker of the modern world,” which has been given him. But if we consider the peace of Westphalia from the religious viewpoint, it becomes a question mark. Richelieu was a convinced Catholic and a faithful priest, author among other religious tracts of a treatise on Christian perfection. Yet he was the man who more than any other prevented the reunion of Germany under Catholic auspices. Many are inclined to think that if the Empire had become once again a strong Catholic State, Protestantism would have died out within and without its borders. Certainly its sway in the Western world would have been immensely decreased. A new Christian commonwealth of the West might have been reconstituted. Did Richelieu foresee that he was preventing this?

Woodstock College E. A. RYAN, S. J

 

[Kaninchen]

Many are inclined to think that if the Empire had become once again a strong Catholic State, Protestantism would have died out within and without its borders. Certainly its sway in the Western world would have been immensely decreased. A new Christian commonwealth of the West might have been reconstituted. Did Richelieu foresee that he was preventing this?

Woodstock College E. A. RYAN, S. J

The Empire had never been a ‘strong Catholic State’, it had been an agglomeration with a lot of Catholics in it and, of course, Richelieu knew what he was doing, he was saving France (and everybody else) from a Europe completely dominated by the Habsburgs.

“Christian commonwealth of the West,” yes, Richelieu understood very well what that really meant.

 

[dmar198]

At any rate, my questions about Zelo Domus Dei are these. If there really are more specific articles to which Innocent X objected, which ones would those be?

The linked article gives some indication: “[Pope] Innocent expressed his sorrow that the decisions arrived at in Westphalia gravely infringed on the rights of, and were injurious to, religion, the Holy See, and the Church, because of the surrender for all time to the heretics and their successors of the property of the Church. He also protested against the toleration of Protestantism. Transactions or agreements concerning ecclesiastical matters made without the authority of the Holy See were declared null even though confirmed by oath.” (footnote deleted)

To me, that looks like there were four main objections: (1) It infringed on the rights of the Church. (2) It surrendered the property of the Church to heretics. (3) It tolerated Protestantism. (4) Ecclesiastical matters was decided without the authority of the pope.

I would like to see a translated text of the bull so that we could verify whether and in what sense this summary reflects the actual contents of the bull.

Is it really as simple as an objection to the continued existence of Protestantism, or is there something more nuanced?

It looks to me like there was more nuance than that, but I think it is likely that there was some kind of objection to the continued existence of Protestantism.

Also, I have this question for Catholics in general.

Do you join Pope Innocent X in vehemently objecting to the Peace of Westphalia in any particular sense?

Yes, I think all 4 points raised above can be defended in at least some sense. The third one is the most difficult to me. I think religious toleration is a good thing, in fact I think it’s a necessary consequence of the Church’s constant teaching on religious freedom.

However, I think there can be serious objections to tolerating “religions” that involve a kind of terrorism. And at that time at least, I think there is evidence that the pope thought that Protestantism involved a kind of terrorism, exemplified by stealing Church properties and seceding from the unity of Christendom. Because of this, I think he can be defended for objecting to the toleration of Protestantism.

NB: I don’t think there is anything inherently terrorist in the usual sense about modern Protestantism, but I think Pope Innocent can be forgiven for thinking that there was something terrorist about Protestantism in his day. Thus, I don’t think there is a contradiction between the modern push for toleration and the early denunciation of it, because the things tolerated were different, or at least I think the popes of that time thought the Protestants of his day were kind of terrorist. Does that make sense?

If so, what would you suggest as a more acceptable outcome to all of this Reformation-era conflict?

First of all, I think conflict should be avoided by using every peaceful means available. If the Reformation happened at that time, I think the leaders of Protestantism should have left all Church property alone and bought (or moved to) non-Church property to build their own churches. I think it’s hard to complain that someone uses a military against you if you stole their property and won’t give it back.

On the Church’s side, I think perhaps it might have been more peaceful if the Church had willingly ceded property in territory controlled by Protestants in order to avoid conflict. But I may be mistaking a false peace for a true one.

As far as I can tell, this is what Pope Innocent X wanted. Whether through force or persuasion, he wanted to install rulers in all the important parts of Europe who would only recognize the Catholic Church and exclude all forms of Protestantism, thus effectively wiping it out. Was that the goal? Am I misreading it somehow? And how would you evaluate that goal as compared to the actual outcome?

In my opinion, the pope did want Protestantism wiped out, but didn’t want to permit military means to accomplish this end, except where he thought the conditions of a just war were met. Everywhere else, I think he wanted to use persuasive preaching to bring Protestants back to union with the Church, for which purpose he sent missionaries. I think he wanted rulers of Europe to assist him with these efforts, and I think he can be defended on those grounds.

As for evaluating that goal with how the results turned out, I think it would be good if Protestants came back to union with the Church, and I think persuasive preaching is the way to do that. I think we can look back on episodes of violence in the time period, and determine whether the conditions for a just war were met or not, and condemn it wherever it wasn’t. Is that helpful?

 

[rinnie]

He didn’t – see post #20 – the facts again:
The first truth to learn is that the Church is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium

, art 39].

So the reality is that it is **people **in the Church who may do bad things. So, in *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”

Exactly, like an example I used in another thread.

St Paul believed he was doing the will of God when he persecuted Christians, did he not?

Scripture states Deut. 21:22-23 Gal. 3:13

As the statement reads ERROR on the part of CHURCH MEMBERS or Representatives.

Just as ST Paul was indeed a doing wrong, he was lucky enough to be given the gift of blindness from God so he could see the truth. Unfortunately not all of the leaders of God were given that privilege.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

.

I believe your own examples prove that the Church may have exposed wolves (false teachers) within her flock and excommunicated them at best, but not coercion as you defined it.

Look at your example’s you provided, you have the Emperor’s implementing secular penalties upon the proved heretics within the Emperor’s domain and rule of law, it was not the Catholic Church who never has the secular powers to execute capital punishment or secular punishment and penalties to banish a heretic to another providence within the Emperor’s domain.

In other words the Catholic church cannot take responsibility for an action taken by a secular Emperor’s punishment or penalties of law, when a heretic would of known of the Emperor’s penalties. The same rule applied when the Arians had Emperors who ruled on the Arian behalf, the Catholic saints suffered the same secular penalties as did the Arian heretics.

First, let me mention that separation of Church and State is a relatively modern thing, and without that this sort of neat dichotomy doesn’t hold much water.

Second, let me be clear- I am not as much opposed to the right of a state to punish lawbreakers; my primary interest is the enactment and implementation of unjust laws. Specifically, laws that state things like “It is illegal to be a Lutheran in this here kingdom/country/empire.” Or it is illegal to be a Calvinist. That sort of thing. Now, do you really think that these laws came into existence completely apart from (name removed by moderator)ut by the Catholic Church? Or is it possible that upon further examination, members of the Catholic religious, acting on the authority of their bishops, actually made these sorts of laws themselves (the horribly unjust ones, that is), at times were also the people who tried and convicted Protestants (or heretics, as if that distinction matters), and then handed them over to secular authorities to determine punishment? Keep in mind that Pope Innocent III equated heresy with high treason, thus setting a precedent for convicting a heretic of a crime worthy of death- except that the CC never much liked to carry out such penalties, thus necessitating the handover to secular authorities.

Third, in just a few minutes I’m going to start going through a particularly enlightening article that has to do with Vatican II, Mirari Vos (1832), and Libertas in 1888. I’m going to take a look at how in Dignitatis Humanae, the Catholic Church (with the full weight of magisterial authority) asserts that the state does Not have any sort of authority to exercise religious coercion. Then I will take a look at the assertion that in separate documents, on a slightly different topic, and with just as much magisterial authority, the Catholic Church also asserts that the Catholic Church (and it alone) has the God-given authority to use such coercion legitimately, although not on the unbaptized- only on baptized Catholics, in order to preserve the unity of the Church. Once I take a good look at that, I will ask if these types of situations lead you to the conclusion that secular authorities acted entirely apart from involvement by the Catholic Church, in which case you would obviously conclude that they did so unjustly and had no right to do any such thing. Vatican II is clear about this. Or perhaps you’d agree that these secular authorities acted in concert with the Catholic Church, and that these sorts of things were legitimate and somewhat right because they were done at the behest of the Catholic Church- but one of many who claim to be the sole proprietor of a God-given right to use coercion on its flock, but according to you, the only one who’s truly right about it.

Continued momentarily.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

From a later history in the West when Catholic Kings and princes had punishments and **penalties for their fellow Catholic citizens **if found guilty of heresy. Although the above examples do not apply to the Western Protestant Queens and Kings, who ruled, punished and exercised capital penalties of law, when the Royal crown is sole ruler and leader of both, the Church combined with secular Protestant Royal political powers.

When this history is magnified, we find the Church giving to God what belongs to God and giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. We cannot place religious coercion on the Catholic Church, when it is Catholic secular Kings and princes ruling over their Catholic subjects. The Catholic Church is responsible for exposing and excommunicating her own Catholic members who fall into heresy or teaching heresy in order to protect the flock of Jesus Christ in all ages, while she is under secular powers, it is the secular powers who at times are Catholic exercise their capital punishment, banishment and penalties within their lands.

Your coercion of the Albigensian’s has a fallacy.

1. The Albigensian’s were all baptized members of the Catholic Church.
2. The Albigensian’s lived in and under the laws of Catholic Kings and princes.
3. The Albigensian’s were Catholic’s and became protestants later because they disobeyed not only their secular Catholic Kings, but refused to adhere to the advice from their local Catholic Bishop’s.
4. The Catholic Church does not kill any Cathars or Albigensian’s.
5. Secular Catholic Kings and princes did not execute their secular laws of capital punishment or penalties upon the Albigensian’s for NOT CONVERTING (they were already Catholics), but for not repenting and obeying the King’s law’s and rule of the land.
6. It was not uncommon for Catholic and or Protestant Kings to property grab their conquered enemies or criminals who violate their secular laws.

The Catholic Church in all ages never has the power to exercise capital punishment or exercise penalties such as banishment. The Church’s penalties are penance for the found Catholic heretic who repents or excommunication from teaching heresy to the Church’s flock. How is this coercion of religion by the Catholic church? when the worst she can do is offer penance and excommunication by her given divine authority in the keys to bind and loose on earth.

I was under the impression that Pope Innocent III was solely responsible for starting the Crusade that wiped out the Cathars/Albigensians, please let me know if that is incorrect. Also, I’m interested in why assertion number one has significance to you- The Albigensians were all baptized members of the Catholic Church. Yes, they were, and I’m fairly certain there were all baptized when they were infants, yes? So that puts them under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, which claims what sorts of rights over them at that point? I’m about to take a look at an article, like I said before, it asserts that according to CC doctrine, it claims the right to coerce its own baptized members if they decide to leave or do anything that hurts the unity of the CC. Was that your impression already?

 

[badnewsbarrett]

You might find this paper interesting reading, I know I did. google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=48&ved=0CCoQFjAHOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theologicalstudies.net%2F9%2F9.4%2F9.4.7.pdf&rct=j&q=text%20of%20zelo%20domus%20dei&ei=BjPLVKnSBoOdyQTSpYG4AQ&usg=AFQjCNFHu-KVUoSV3TtM_qRTNprEefzaKQ&sig2=mpWbm9aJIU2HTPqBTmN5hg

Thank you very much for this.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I think there is an important historical insight related to what you said about property. You wrote: I agree that religious coercion is and always has been wrong, but I think that if we look at the issue of property in the context of the time, we must try hard not to overlook the issue of who owned the property. It’s not always whoever is in immediate possession of it. It is my understanding that the Cathars took over ancient Catholic churches and monasteries by converting their occupants. But I don’t think that would make that property “Cathar property.” I think it would still belong, by right, to the Church.

If you truly believe that is the case, I will say something very similar to a post I recently made in a different thread asking why the CC doesn’t demand its land back, especially in England and Germany.

If you believe you can make a really good, legitimate argument that something rightfully belongs to you, why not use the legal system to see if that will work?

Regarding the Cathar situation, I suspect that the situation was one in which the Catholic Church really would have liked to possess certain things, but it had no actual legal basis to do so. If it had, the CC would have taken legal action and been successful. Or they would have taken legal action and been unsuccessful in reclaiming what they wanted, and at that point the right thing to do is live with the decision and not go to war over something that you (evidently) cannot make a real legal claim on.

Instead the Catholic Church went to war. And apparently, you think that taking something by force somehow proves that it rightfully belonged to you all along. I, on the other hand, think that it proves the Catholic Church had no legal, peaceful basis for demonstrating that these things truly belonged to them, and then it went to war and was successful, which proves that it was capable of taking something by force that may or may not have really been their to possess. I suspect not, however, if only because the CC resorted to violence in order to take what it Felt was theirs. Of course, I care far less about how that particular pope felt and far more about what the CC would have been able to demonstrate from a legal standpoint.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the fiefdoms where Catharism became dominant had landed obligations to the prince of France. In other words, I don’t think they had a right to do whatever they wanted in that land. It wasn’t theirs – unless I’ve missed something. Therefore, I think the Church (and France) can be defended for wanting to recover property that they thought was theirs after the Cathars refused to give it back. I think I see a potential problem with this. Let me put my objection into the form of a syllogism:

(1) Burning a book seems to be the right of whoever legitimately has control over that book.
(2) The Church legitimately acquired control over the bulk of heretical writings,
(3) If both of those are true, it seems to follow that the Church had a right to burn the bulk of heretical writings, and therefore burning them does not, I think, coerce the author.

I think Premise #2 in that syllogism is the most likely to be rejected, but I think there is evidence for it. It is my understanding that the Church commanded people to hand over the books, and the people who it commanded had a legitimate duty to obey the Church in religious matters. I say this because it is my understanding that the people who the Church commanded to hand over heretical books were under the Church’s religious jurisdiction, and it had authority over them in religious matters.

I am reminded of the scene in Acts where the former magicians came to St. Paul to confess their sins and subsequently burned their books – Acts 19:18-19. I do not know if he told them to do this or not, but I think anyone can see that this would be his right as the religious superior of his spiritual children, and I think a similar situation applies to the Church and the bulk of heretical books.

Let me know what you think of that. I think there may be more to the story here. If some of the leaders of the Church used immoral means to achieve a good end, I think the Church can both assert that the end was good and assert that the means were contrary to Church teaching. Does that sound reasonable? I think you could provide an overall narrative with two main categories of fighting heretics: fighting that met the conditions of just warfare and fighting that did not. I think one would have to sort each individual case into those categories based on whether they met the conditions for a just war or not, and I think some examples of fighting heretics did meet those conditions and therefore can be defended.

Unless you’re missing something…I think what you’re missing is that the battlefield is not the place where you demonstrate a legal claim, the battlefield is where you show that you weren’t able to demonstrate a legal claim so instead you’re demonstrating that you can take something by force.

To your example of magicians burning their books, I also don’t know if they were asked to do so or not. These were obviously recent converts who were making a whole lifestyle change, and they were bringing themselves into line with Christian doctrine. However, I have some serious reservations about the concept of Catholic jurisdiction, if I am understanding the specifics correctly. For example, my understanding of religious freedom is such that everyone has the right to leave their religion if they decide that’s what they want to do. And my understanding of the Catholic idea of its jurisdiction is such that it claims for itself the right to use religious coercion over its baptized members if they decide to do just that- whether those baptized members are converts who gave themselves up as adults, or whether they’re cradle Catholics who were baptized as infants without giving any form of consent to being coerced or to anything else. But I will get to all that in a moment.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

This is the link to an article that’s been particularly helpful to me. firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

In it, we take a look at Vatican II in general and Dignitatis Humanae in particular. We begin with a counterfactual- this is what it Looks like. It Looks like Catholic doctrine changed (but of course it did not). It clearly does state that the state should not use religious coercion.

*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.

Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

1. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.*

But take special note of the second sentence- 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.

On the plus side, there were several mostly-Catholic nations that switched to a secular government and stopped having an official religion. But lots of people do conclude that this was a change in doctrine, like the liberals who want lots more doctrine to change, or the particular brand of traditionalists who believe Vatican II as a whole is fraught with heresy. But in truth, the article says, there was no change in doctrine. In order to see that clearly, it’s necessary to take a good look at what DH and V2 say about the state specifically while looking to other Church documents that pertain to the coercive powers claimed by the Catholic Church, while making key distinctions between baptized Catholics who fall under Church jurisdiction and those who do not.

The initial conclusion (that Vatican II did no such thing as change Catholic doctrine) is a helpful sign to me that this article and its analysis may be well received by CAF Catholics. So I will continue to poke around and through this and some other things in order to see if the rest of the article meets with approval as far as accuracy goes.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Briefly, these are some of the key quotes from the article by Thomas Pink. firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

“The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence.”

Dignitatis Humanae would be the main source for supporting this claim, and I already posted a quote demonstrating that it strictly limited its scope to the role of the state. It’s so limited, it doesn’t even address the question of whether the Church has the ability to authorize a state to do what it has no authority of its own to do.

“The temporal ends served by the state, and the fact that religion transcends those ends, limit state authority over religion. This account of why the state has no authority to coerce religious practice clearly does not apply to the Church at all. Well before Vatican II, the Church had already denied the state’s authority to do that on the terms articulated by Dignitatis Humanae. And that was certainly not because the Catholic Church opposed religious coercion as such. Rather, religious coercion might be legitimate, but only on the authority of the Church. The Church was the only body with the right to coerce on behalf of religious truth: to issue directives, and to back those directives up by the threat of punishments. The state could act only as the Church’s agent. It had no authority of its own in this matter.”

Question: Do you agree that the Church’s coercive legitimacy is transferable? If the CC does have the authority to coerce its own members (as it claims) does that legitimacy extend to a state that is coercive because the CC licensed them to be? In your opinion, would it also potentially extend to a mostly-Catholic state that simply wants to do such a thing without being specifically asked, or would it only apply to rulers that are specifically asked to be coercive? Oh, and if you’re curious, the much-earlier denial of state authority goes back to Francisco Suárez’s Defensio Fidei Catholicae of 1613, and then it received clear magisterial endorsement shortly before Vatican I. Immortal Dei, Leo XIII. Within that same document, however, Leo XIII was not as restricted in his scope as Dignitatus Humanae was. He Did talk about the Church’s right to coerce.

"“In truth Jesus Christ gave his Apostles free authority in matters sacred, together with a true power to legislate and what follows therefrom, the twofold power to judge and to punish…
Hence, it is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man’s guide to heaven: and it is to the same Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, what concerns religion…
[God] has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, the other over human, things…
Whatever, therefore, in things human is in any way of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls or to the worship of God, is wholly subject to the power and judgment of the Church.”

A few comments have been made about how all of this is way in the past; please notice how all of this analysis of Church teaching focuses on the 19th and 20th centuries with occasional, parenthetical reports on 16th or 17th century doctrines and teachings.

"But the Church’s formal teaching on her own coercive authority, and her canon law, remained unchanged. Indeed, her right to discourage heresy, apostasy, and schism by punishments was in 1941, shortly before the Council, affirmed in a notable theological treatment both learned and extensive: volume one of L’Église du Verbe Incarné by Charles Journet, who was made a cardinal by Paul VI in 1965, and who played an important role in the passage of Dignitatis Humanae.

And the Church’s coercive authority has been affirmed since the Council as well. The 1983 Code of Canon Law still teaches that the Church has a coercive authority over the baptized, with the authority to direct and to punish, by temporal as well as spiritual penalties, for culpable apostasy or heresy. Pope Benedict XVI has recently reaffirmed the Church’s right to punish culpable heresy, referring to the traditional symbol of the Church’s coercive authority, the bishop’s pastoral staff, considered as a punitive and disciplinary virga or rod. ‘The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray,’ he said in a homily preached for the solemnity of the Sacred Heart in 2010"\

So basically, we’re looking at some various Church documents to determine what sorts of teachings on coercion (by the Church or by the state) carry Magisterial weight. Thoughts and opinions on the analysis are appreciated; this is Church teaching we’re talking about so of course I want to put it in front of good Catholics who are prepared to say yes this is what the Church teaches or no, not quite, this is what’s wrong and here is a way to better know what the Church really says about that.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Again from firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

“This was a view of religious liberty deriving from liberal political theory, which understands religious liberty as entirely person-centered. Any right not to be religiously coerced is set directly by the character and dignity of the human person, and the right holds, at least within the sphere of what is private to the individual, against any authority. True, before Vatican II that right to liberty was indeed limited to the private sphere, with public practice and proselytization still remaining subject to some coercive state regulation on behalf of the truth. But even so, the right to liberty was increasingly understood in these person-centered terms.
But formal Church teaching and canon law have historically assumed a quite different, jurisdiction-centered model. People certainly do have some right not to be coerced in matters of religion, a right based on their personal dignity as bearing the image of God, in particular, as people who are metaphysically free and so able to determine for themselves their response to religious claims. But the extent of this right depends on what kind of juridical authority is behind the coercion and on whether the person falls under that authority’s jurisdiction. People have a right not to have their religious practice coerced by the state. They do not have the same right not to be coerced by the Church, especially if they are baptized and fall within the Church’s jurisdiction. Where the baptized are concerned, the Church possesses a right to punish that can extend even to individual belief and practice.”

Full disclosure, I believe in religious freedom. That means this. In all places, in all countries of the world, everyone has certain freedoms that they walk around with. Those freedoms are to freely belong to churches and religious societies. Everyone has the freedom to exercise his or her religion, both alone and in community with others, in public or in private, unless this is detrimental to public order, health or morals. Everyone has the freedom to evangelize anyone they like, and it is not morally permissible to force people to entirely avoid a certain type of person. And everyone has the freedom to leave the religion they currently belong to if they so choose, without any penalty at all save for an official loss of membership status. Penalizing someone for giving up their religion or using coercion to prevent them from doing so is wrong, it is morally impermissible to do so, and there is no authority, no person on this planet who is exempt from that.

Furthermore, in a society that respects religious freedom in any way resembling this, it is not pragmatically likely that the Catholic Church could have its special rights to jurisdiction respected by secular law. After all, the Catholic Church is not the only religious entity that claims exclusive rights to punish or stop people from leaving them, from evangelizing them, or from being heretics. Islam does quite a bit of this as well, and of course they believe the Catholic Church is not the true Church, it is only Islam that can rightly claim to be the true defenders of the Truth. So if secular law respects the Catholic Church’s claims in any way, of course you have to do the same for anyone else who makes such a claim. The solution is obvious- as far as secular law goes, these claims are treated as if they don’t exist, or are at the very least not valid defenses for any coercion that does happen. Both Catholicism and Islam are treated as entities that claim to have coercive rights over their members, but secular law treats them as if those claims are false. And that is as it should be.

So that’s basically where I’m coming from. But help me understand, please, what is this jurisdiction-centered model and what has it meant to you as a Catholic? Do you feel like this type of jurisdiction-centered model is effectively eliminated under the American legal system, or is there still some significance to it in your actual life?

Now, let’s return to Dignitatus Humanae for just a moment. It, of course, deals strictly with the state’s utter lack of coercive authority (of its own, of course). The point of this exercise is to demonstrate, first, that this is not a change in Catholic doctrine. And second, that what Catholic doctrine actually teaches is that the Catholic Church is the only entity that can legitimately use religious coercion as a tool- but only on baptized Catholics. Oh, a quick question.

Since the Eastern Orthodox are regarded as having legitimate apostolic succession, is the Other Lung regarded as another entity that retains coercive authority? Also, do the Eastern Orthodox share this tendency to see itself as something that can legitimately coerce those who would like to leave it or somehow hurt it from within?

Back to Conscience and Coercion. At one point in DH, there is a reference to the Fourth Council of Toledo, where coercion is condemned when it involves the un-baptized. Particularly when they are being coerced into baptism, this is very much opposed with full magisterial weight. But in that same document, right after the portion referenced, there is something else.

“The Fourth Council of Toledo condemns coercion into baptism and then, in the very passage referred to by Dignitatis Humanae, in the same terms and with the same force, demands coercive measures to retain within the faith those who, having been baptized, then attempt to leave. The declaration is clearly not telling a story about how Church teaching has always opposed the coercion of religious belief as such- that would be utterly false.”

Quick question- does this sort of thing ever get talked about in RCIA classes? Do people know about this going in?

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Some final quotes and questions pertaining to firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

In addition to all of this, some intriguing questions and statements are posed toward the end of what I’ve linked to.

“Was the Church not wrong in the past to license state involvement in religious coercion and even demand that Christian states coerce on her behalf and on her authority?”

First, I suppose everyone needs to get on the same page- yes, the Catholic Church has actually licensed state coercion and demanded that Christian states coerce on its behalf, most especially during a time when the various Christian lands in the West were known as Christendom. When using the term in the narrower sense that arrangement is the thing that defined its age, it would not be entirely inaccurate to say that this particular relationship between Church and State was the sine qua non of Christendom itself.

Second. I think we’re basically on the same page with the supposition that all of that is behind us, and there are no plans to go back to that and try to duplicate it in the modern era. (Let me know if that is mistaken). But was it wrong in the past to do this? Or was it basically permissible, while not being entirely optimal?

Here’s a closing statement.

“We particularly need what is currently lacking—a theology of the Church that properly addresses her traditionally claimed authority to coerce individual belief and practice while explaining the doctrinal basis of and limits to the Church’s power of coercion.”

By the way, what are the limits? Is there a line, or is it possible that when the Catholic Church does choose to coerce, the limits are so broad that the Church is essentially a law unto itself?

Ah, one more question from me.

When a cradle Catholic becomes a heretic and the CC then claims a legit right to coercion, would you say it’s fair to call that coercion without consent? Keep in mind that nearly every heretic in the history of the CC was a cradle Catholic. I have a feeling that the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church has very little to do with consent, if that is the case perhaps someone feels up to the task of telling me why you think that is a good thing, or even remotely acceptable.

Thanks everybody for whatever help you can give me in working through this particular FirstThings article and with the subject matter as a whole.

 

[Duane1966]

If you believe you can make a really good, legitimate argument that something rightfully belongs to you, why not use the legal system to see if that will work?

Regarding the Cathar situation, I suspect that the situation was one in which the Catholic Church really would have liked to possess certain things, but it had no actual legal basis to do so. If it had, the CC would have taken legal action and been successful. Or they would have taken legal action and been unsuccessful in reclaiming what they wanted, and at that point the right thing to do is live with the decision and not go to war over something that you (evidently) cannot make a real legal claim on.

This is a specious argument. You assume at least two things, that we clearly see in history do not bear out your assumptions.

1.) That laws will be just.

A simple online search of laws enacted in Nazi Germany; colonial and post colonial laws enacted in this country towards the American Indians, Catholics, and African-American slaves; and pregnancy laws in China, are just a few that come to mind. Should a person or Church appeal to laws that are unjust, and is it their duty to live by the rulings of unjust laws? Your blanket statement implies yes.

2.) You assume that even when the laws are just, their will be an attempt to have them justly applied.

Again a simple look at voting rights abuses in this country in the 20th century where many laws were just, but the courts made no attempt to apply them justly, shows the fallacy of your argument.

Your argument seems to make the assumption, that should you lose in the legal system, you were in the wrong. Jesus had his moment before Pilate. How did that work out for Him?

 

[dmar198]

If you truly believe that is the case, I will say something very similar to a post I recently made in a different thread asking why the CC doesn’t demand its land back, especially in England and Germany.

If you believe you can make a really good, legitimate argument that something rightfully belongs to you, why not use the legal system to see if that will work?

I think it is very reasonable to use the legal system to assert one’s right to property that has been stolen. In the other thread, I saw some people give potential reasons for why the Church doesn’t use the legal system to demand some of its ancient properties back. Actually, I think the Church has made some remarks that are relevant to this. For example, after World War II, in which some Church property was confiscated, the pope wrote the following: [It] is a duty in justice to return the schools and confiscated property, thereby enabling the Church to carry out her mission also in the area of education. Without doubt this would be a great benefit to society as a whole. … The restitution of property is an issue that frequently resurfaces, especially for the Catholic Church of the Byzantine-Romanian rite, which is still deprived of many worship sites she had at her disposal before her suppression. Obviously, justice demands that what was taken should be returned as far as possible. source Also: When the French Government assumed…the obligation of supplying the clergy with [an income]…it was an obligation assumed by the State to make restitution, at least in part, to the Church whose property had been confiscated during the first Revolution. On the other hand when the Roman Pontiff in this same Concordat bound himself and his successors, for the sake of peace, not to disturb the possessors of property thus taken from the Church, he did so only on one condition: that the French Government should bind itself in perpetuity to endow the clergy suitably and to provide for the expenses of divine worship. source In light of that, I think it is clear that the Church does ordinarily assert a legitimate right to its churches, monasteries, and places of worship where they have been stolen by non-Catholics. But an important word there is “ordinarily.” In some cases, it has freely agreed to give up its rights over some properties in order to secure something else. I think that helps explain why it isn’t currently using the legal system to recover its ancient properties (at least I don’t think it is). Does that make sense?

Regarding the Cathar situation, I suspect that the situation was one in which the Catholic Church really would have liked to possess certain things, but it had no actual legal basis to do so. If it had, the CC would have taken legal action and been successful.

When you say it would have taken legal action, the image that comes to my mind is that you think there was or should have been an impartial court that the Church and the Cathars could meet at in order to make hash things out. Is that what you mean?

I think it is significant in this regard that the pope sent a legate to the Albigensians. It is my understanding that part of his job was to negotiate the return of property to France and to the Church. When he was murdered, I wouldn’t blame the Church if it treated that as a definitive failure of diplomatic means. What do you think? Should it have sent another legate?

Instead the Catholic Church went to war. And apparently, you think that taking something by force somehow proves that it rightfully belonged to you all along.

I don’t think that. I think the Church’s properties were stolen, I think it tried to recover them through peaceful means, and I think it called a crusade at least in part because the Cathars refused to return the Church’s property through peaceful means.

on the other hand, think that it proves the Catholic Church had no legal, peaceful basis for demonstrating that these things truly belonged to them

If the Church did have a legal claim on property taken by the Cathars, how would you answer this argument: there was no international court to demonstrate that claim to. Countries in that time used legates to mediate disagreements. The Cathars killed the papal legate. That constituted a rejection of peaceful means of restitution by the Cathars. Therefore, non-peaceful means were the only recourse to restore justice.

Is that a reasonable argument?

my understanding of religious freedom is such that everyone has the right to leave their religion if they decide that’s what they want to do.

That is my understanding as well. But I don’t think all instances of embracing heresy constitute leaving the Catholic religion. Thus, I think there are some people who embrace heresy and yet remain subject to ecclesiastical penalties. Does that make sense?

 

[Duane1966]

Some final quotes and questions pertaining to firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

In addition to all of this, some intriguing questions and statements are posed toward the end of what I’ve linked to.

“Was the Church not wrong in the past to license state involvement in religious coercion and even demand that Christian states coerce on her behalf and on her authority?”

First, I suppose everyone needs to get on the same page- yes, the Catholic Church has actually licensed state coercion and demanded that Christian states coerce on its behalf, most especially during a time when the various Christian lands in the West were known as Christendom. When using the term in the narrower sense that arrangement is the thing that defined its age, it would not be entirely inaccurate to say that this particular relationship between Church and State was the sine qua non of Christendom itself.

Second. I think we’re basically on the same page with the supposition that all of that is behind us, and there are no plans to go back to that and try to duplicate it in the modern era. (Let me know if that is mistaken). But was it wrong in the past to do this? Or was it basically permissible, while not being entirely optimal?

Here’s a closing statement.

“We particularly need what is currently lacking—a theology of the Church that properly addresses her traditionally claimed authority to coerce individual belief and practice while explaining the doctrinal basis of and limits to the Church’s power of coercion.”

By the way, what are the limits? Is there a line, or is it possible that when the Catholic Church does choose to coerce, the limits are so broad that the Church is essentially a law unto itself?

Ah, one more question from me.

When a cradle Catholic becomes a heretic and the CC then claims a legit right to coercion, would you say it’s fair to call that coercion without consent? Keep in mind that nearly every heretic in the history of the CC was a cradle Catholic. I have a feeling that the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church has very little to do with consent, if that is the case perhaps someone feels up to the task of telling me why you think that is a good thing, or even remotely acceptable.

Thanks everybody for whatever help you can give me in working through this particular FirstThings article and with the subject matter as a whole.

Some questions for you badnews.

1.) When reading your posts, I get the feeling that you feel that the Church’s members have the right to preach and teach things that are contrary to the Church, from Her own pulpits, and when told to stop, if the majority of that particular diocese, or individual parish disagree, they have the right to ignore and take over that property, making it theirs. Is this what you believe?

2.) I get the feeling you think it is okay to disseminate materials to the Church’s members that She knows to be false (in the case of the Albigensians they were preaching to Catholics from bibles where passages had been changed to support their views. Hmmm, who else do we know that has done this?), and the Church should do nothing about this, all in the name of religious freedom. Is this true?

3.) A hypothetical example (though it may have happened for all I know). Many Aztecs converted to Catholicism in the 16th century. Suppose some of those Aztecs had practiced a perverted form of Catholicism, holding onto their ways of sacrificing humans (with the consent of the human being sacrificed) from Church property. If the Church told them to stop, and they said no, and then the Church authorized the use of force to make them stop, surely those AzCatholicteks, in your view should cry religious coercion, and be mad that it happened without their consent, correct?

4.) Did God practice religious coercion when He cast Satan out of Heaven? What about when He cast Adam and Eve out of Eden?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

badnewsbarrett;12717182]I was under the impression that Pope Innocent III was solely responsible for starting the Crusade that wiped out the Cathars/Albigensians, please let me know if that is incorrect

.

Your position of having Pope Innocent III “solely responsible for starting the Crusade” is misleading in the negative, to say the least.
First of all Pope Innocent III “Post Miserabile” was not a battle cry to start a Crusade of killing and wiping out any Albigensians. That is incorrect and a misleading of history.

Post Miserabile was pope Innocent’s III papal bull, that called for an effort by European Kings who were at war with each other to settle their disputes that would apply new administrative and organization efforts to focus more attention to the Holy Land. The European Kings did not respond to the Popes renewed effort. The European Kings did not respond to the Popes Papal Bull calling for them to settle their disputes.

What transpired particularly on the subject of the Albigensian’s in Southern France, after the Pope’s Papal Bull. Ambitious nobleman from Northern France invaded the South. It is here were the atrocities of the Albigensian’s is recorded.

The Problem with your history here. Is that you neglect the recorded historical facts that many Catholics loyal to the Pope, who were neighbors of the Albigensian’s came to the Albigensian’s defense and were all massacred and suffered the same fate as the Albigensians. Why non-Catholic historians miss this fact, can only leave one to speculate.

This incident marks the crusading ideal would be used in different circumstances apart from the original intent of action to assist the Holy Land called upon by Popes.

Also, I’m interested in why assertion number one has significance to you- The Albigensians were all baptized members of the Catholic Church. Yes, they were, and I’m fairly certain there were all baptized when they were infants, yes? So that puts them under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, which claims what sorts of rights over them at that point?

Your earlier post carried with it a misrepresentation that the Church attacked the Albigensians because they were protestants which is false. The Church addressed the heresy by Albigensians infecting the Church. The crusades were not purposely called to eliminate the Albigensians. Such positions as the latter are misleading. The local secular powers, such as what the northern French nobleman did, for secular reasons of gaining goods and properties. It is easy to confuse this history, if the Church is placed under prejudices and false judgments with misconceived notions applied to history. That is not to say the Catholic Church is without sinners.

I’m about to take a look at an article, like I said before, it asserts that according to CC doctrine, it claims the right to coerce its own baptized members if they decide to leave or do anything that hurts the unity of the CC. Was that your impression already?

I know of Catholic Kings fighting Catholic Kings and Catholic Nobles. But I have never heard of the Catholic Church coercing baptized Catholics? The Catholic church has the keys to excommunicate one of her own teachers who refuses to stop teaching heresy about Jesus and His divine revelations to the Church’s flock.

Can you give an example that proves the Catholic church coercing a baptized Catholic? Because the ones you posted do not, when viewed in their whole content of history.

 

[Peter_J]

4.) Did God practice religious coercion when He cast Satan out of Heaven? What about when He cast Adam and Eve out of Eden?

I’m surprised this thread has gotten this far without these questions being asked.

 

[Peter_J]

Granted, I may have grown a tad cynical, over the last few years, about discussion forums.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I think it is very reasonable to use the legal system to assert one’s right to property that has been stolen. In the other thread, I saw some people give potential reasons for why the Church doesn’t use the legal system to demand some of its ancient properties back. Actually, I think the Church has made some remarks that are relevant to this. In light of that, I think it is clear that the Church does ordinarily assert a legitimate right to its churches, monasteries, and places of worship where they have been stolen by non-Catholics. But an important word there is “ordinarily.” In some cases, it has freely agreed to give up its rights over some properties in order to secure something else. I think that helps explain why it isn’t currently using the legal system to recover its ancient properties (at least I don’t think it is). Does that make sense? When you say it would have taken legal action, the image that comes to my mind is that you think there was or should have been an impartial court that the Church and the Cathars could meet at in order to make hash things out. Is that what you mean?

After further research, it’s come to my attention that it’s highly doubtful that any Church property was in use by the Albigensians. From what I’ve been able to gather, they had their own types of church buildings which they called synagogues, and in most areas where Catholics and Cathars lived in peace together (for over a century, in that region) the Catholics used Church property while the Cathars used places that they had built. There were certain areas where the Cathars had been very successful in converting basically all the Catholics, however, including Catholic priests, and in these cities where there were too few Catholics to properly use and maintain Church property, that property was abandoned and fell into disrepair.

So your whole premise of recapturing “stolen property” appears to fall flat. All that was really necessary was to properly catechize lay people and relocate enough of them plus some clergy to regions where Church property was abandoned and in disrepair, then repair it and make use of it. They would have been perfectly free to do so.

I think it is significant in this regard that the pope sent a legate to the Albigensians. It is my understanding that part of his job was to negotiate the return of property to France and to the Church. When he was murdered, I wouldn’t blame the Church if it treated that as a definitive failure of diplomatic means. What do you think? Should it have sent another legate? I don’t think that. I think the Church’s properties were stolen, I think it tried to recover them through peaceful means, and I think it called a crusade at least in part because the Cathars refused to return the Church’s property through peaceful means. If the Church did have a legal claim on property taken by the Cathars, how would you answer this argument: there was no international court to demonstrate that claim to. Countries in that time used legates to mediate disagreements. The Cathars killed the papal legate. That constituted a rejection of peaceful means of restitution by the Cathars. Therefore, non-peaceful means were the only recourse to restore justice.

It is my understanding that the legate was sent to Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, in order to persuade him to either expel or kill the Cathars in his lands. And like I said, the notion of stolen property is quite mistaken. Raymond VI was understandably upset, because Catholics and Cathars had lived peacefully alongside each other in his kingdom for over a century and he did not want to go killing his own people just because they were heretics. He refused, the papacy (via legate) refused to take no for an answer, there are some well-researched incidents that involved lots of yelling and disagreement, and someone ultimately linked to Raymond VI killed the legate that refused to take no for an answer.

As far as a potential solution to this whole mess, one idea would be for the papacy to Not send legates abroad to kingdoms of interest and tell them they need to kill or expel some of their own people for reasons pertaining to heresy. How about that?

Is that a reasonable argument? That is my understanding as well. But I don’t think all instances of embracing heresy constitute leaving the Catholic religion. Thus, I think there are some people who embrace heresy and yet remain subject to ecclesiastical penalties. Does that make sense?

Ordinarily, if there are some Catholics who embrace heresy, I might suggest that Rome take action that involves demoting a bishop and installing a faithful one, move problematic priests to different (smaller) parishes and install some new priests, that sort of thing. If you really have jurisdiction over these people, you can do that. That’s what it means to have jurisdiction over religious leadership- they serve at your pleasure and you can tell them when they’ve lost their position and when they have to move to a different location.

In the case of the Albigensians, they were well over a century removed from that point. So in that type of situation, how exactly do such people remain subject to ecclesiastical penalties? Do they remain the subjects of Rome in any sense besides that one where Rome says they do? Is there any meaningful traction between the claim and things that actually happen in reality, apart from a declaration by someone who says “You belong to me”?

See, that’s the part that doesn’t make sense to me.