Religious coercion

[GKC]

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.

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?

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.

Post mostly comports with my reading, from several years back, when I was moderately immersed in the history of the Cathars/Albigensians, and the unpleasantness that went with it.Though my memory is stale.

Recommended, from the shelf:

Strayer/THE ALBIGENSIAN CUSADES, O’Shea/THE PERFECT HERESY, Sumption/THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE.

GKC

 

[badnewsbarrett]

There were some comments on another thread in this sub-forum that encouraged me to think about forming a narrative. I explored a few issues so far and posted some links and quotes, but I suppose I haven’t formed much of a narrative, other than to talk about religious coercion and the Catholic Church. So this is my first attempt at really coming up with a cohesive narrative.

The Catholic Church is a basically good church that has done a lot of good things. In general, it can be expected to wear a giant white hat that stands out in a crowd. But in its long history, it has not always worn the white hat, so to speak. Most of the time it has, yes, but there have been certain times when the Catholic Church, meaning the Actual Church acting with ordinary Magisterial authority, has taken off the white hat. Like most people, it/they didn’t realize or recognize that they were no longer wearing the white hat, but there needs to come a point in time when you look back, get some perspective, and acknowledge that when the Church did this or that, it was not wearing the white hat and this thing or that thing was wrong.

This is not a narrative that is generally recognized by historians that are frequently labelled as “authentic, faithful, and most orthodox Catholics.” So there’s a bit of a problem there, because some of the specifics that I’ll get into involve the Church bearing false witness against its enemies, and then modern or near-modern Catholics who mix apologetics with history will take all of that false witness at face value, deny that the Church ever bore false witness (or took off its white hat), and publish it as if it were entirely factual. I will get into more specifics later, but at this time I should probably focus on establishing a narrative that puts present-day concerns into focus.

So that’s the basic narrative I’m pushing. “Taking off the white hat” primarily involves religious coercion, whether it’s coercion done by the Church itself or by a state or a ruler who is licensed and/or ordered to coerce on behalf of it. And before we get into more of those specifics, I’d like to ask some of you to interact with the idea that the Catholic Church has taken off the white hat at certain points in its long history, or do you believe that the Catholic Church has a white hat affixed to its head permanently and by definition, such that it alone can judge all and be judged by no one.

In essence, I’m trying to check the temperature for the following: Regarding the idea that the Catholic Church has removed its white hat at certain points, are you even remotely open to that being a possibility? Or is that just a certain type of idea that has to be fought against every time you see it?

 

[Abu]

badnewsbarrett #62
there needs to come a point in time when …you…acknowledge that when the Church did this or that….this thing or that thing was wrong.

1. First, the Catholic Church was established by God – Jesus the Christ, and therefore, since God is perfect and all-knowing, His Church ‘is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].
2. God established His Church with St Peter as His Supreme Vicar and Twelve Apostles – one of whom betrayed Him. Through His crucifixion, death and resurrection He redeemed mankind from the Original Sin of Adam.
3. There have been some bad popes and very many good popes, some of whom have been declared saints. They are protected by God from teaching error in faith and morals to the whole Church when defining dogma or doctrine.
4. To repeat (posts #20, 27):
   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.”

Christ’s Church is unfailingly holy. People, including popes, are judged by God. We are commanded to judge actions, speech, writing against truth.

 

[cmodrmac]

" the heretic is forced into silence and his work is destroyed to the point where there is virtually no historical record of his own voice, but only the voices of his opponents- these would be examples of religious coercion, and that’s also on the Catholic Church. "

ah the old terms -HERETIC -Blasphemer- nothing like them

consider the Church as a corporation-so 1 Vice President starts to badmouth the Corporation publicly and in the press-the Corporation has every right to tell him/her to stop and also to fire him/her if needed

that is what the RC Church does and it is within their rights to do so - a corporation can set their own rules -in the case of the RC Church often they point out that the rules are Divinely Inspired -makes it hard to go against that-people like Father D Crossan or Fox were silenced and they found that this was intolerable and they left the RC Church-both examples joined the episcopal Church , in my opinion most unfortunately ( that is another issue) and they spoke up-wrote-preached and created all sorts of mischief and Crossan still does

As for quoting heresies thousand of years ago or at least hundreds -that is the Past my man-you do not get drawn and quartered anymore ( unfortunately as Bishops Spong and Schorri would be ideal candidates for this)

 

[RebeccaJ]

In essence, I’m trying to check the temperature for the following: Regarding the idea that the Catholic Church has removed its white hat at certain points, are you even remotely open to that being a possibility?

The Catholic view of “Church”, is that the Church is the image of Christ, so it is fully human (us) and fully divine (Jesus). So the humans, us, may wear hats of many different colors and shapes at times. Some admirable and some not. But the white hat always remains on Jesus.

And now, thank you, you’ve given me an image of Jesus in a white cowboy hat. :tiphat:

But you have gone further in your assertions, that of judging the color and style of hats from another time, with a view towards applying modern ideas of what is an acceptable hat and what is not.

It is an erroneous approach to history for which my professors at school would’ve docked your grade down.

The two sided argument:The Catholc Church was too zealous. The Catholic Church was not zealous enough. What a luxury to stand in judgement, and just think, how better it would’ve all been if only I were there to set it right.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It would appear that the OP is passing a false judgment, by using today’s standards of laws and understanding which did not exist in a history when Governments in power had secular laws with religious flavors.

The OP is misjudging the Catholic Church from historical common acts conducted by secular powers which had religious (Christian) flavors used in diverse secular judicial systems. This is by no means the Catholic Church coercing her baptized members.

The Albigensian heresy came from an earlier heresy of Manichaen who’s members were imported from Bulgaria in the Byzantine Empire, who were Bogomils where our OP gets the name relation of Cathars to Albigensian. So the argument of land ownership that competed with the rightful French landowners becomes a subject of debate with the French nobleman and the Immigrated Albigensians.

What is not presented here in the matter of coercion, is that the Catholic Church is the main component which civilized these particular diverse members of society when they were barbarians. The conversion did not come by coercion, but by the blood of Catholic Saints and Martrys which speaks of a history long before the Albigensian heresy infected this populace.

In defense of the Albigensians, these heretical Catholics became defiant of the French secular powers abusing the powers of the bishop’s and their priests who were many times selected by the secular powers or influenced the Pope to approve the French’s selected Bishop who favored the support of the secular powers in an easy life and asceticism, which the Albigensians disapproved of.

The Church answered this difficult political situation to address the Albigensian heresy by sending St. Dominic who practiced what he preached from the monastic life and saintly life lived example of following Christ. St. Dominic’s true Catholic practice from his ultimately approved holy orders convinced many of the Albigensians to repent and return back to the Church. NOT by coercion! but by a lived Christian Example practiced from a life in a true Catholic Saint who never took his white hat off.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It would appear that the OP is passing a false judgment, by using today’s standards of laws and understanding which did not exist in a history when Governments in power had secular laws with religious flavors.

The OP is misjudging the Catholic Church from historical common acts conducted by secular powers which had religious (Christian) flavors used in diverse secular judicial systems. This is by no means the Catholic Church coercing her baptized members.

The Albigensian heresy came from an earlier heresy of Manichaen who’s members were imported from Bulgaria in the Byzantine Empire, who were Bogomils where our OP gets the name relation of Cathars to Albigensian. So the argument of land ownership that competed with the rightful French landowners becomes a subject of debate with the French nobleman and the Immigrated Albigensians.

What is not presented here in the matter of coercion, is that the Catholic Church is the main component which civilized these particular diverse members of society when they were barbarians. The conversion did not come by coercion, but by the blood of Catholic Saints and Martrys which speaks of a history long before the Albigensian heresy infected this populace.

In defense of the Albigensians, these heretical Catholics became defiant of the French secular powers abusing the powers of the bishop’s and their priests who were many times selected by the secular powers or influenced the Pope to approve the French’s selected Bishop who favored the support of the secular powers in an easy life and asceticism, which the Albigensians disapproved of.

The Church answered this difficult political situation to address the Albigensian heresy by sending St. Dominic who practiced what he preached from the monastic life and saintly life lived example of following Christ. St. Dominic’s true Catholic practice from his ultimately approved holy orders convinced many of the Albigensians to repent and return back to the Church. NOT by coercion! but by a lived Christian example practiced life from a true Catholic Saint who never took his white hat off.

 

[GKC]

It would appear that the OP is passing a false judgment, by using today’s standards of laws and understanding which did not exist in a history when Governments in power had secular laws with religious flavors.

The OP is misjudging the Catholic Church from historical common acts conducted by secular powers which had religious (Christian) flavors used in diverse secular judicial systems. This is by no means the Catholic Church coercing her baptized members.

The Albigensian heresy came from an earlier heresy of Manichaen who’s members were imported from Bulgaria in the Byzantine Empire, who were Bogomils where our OP gets the name relation of Cathars to Albigensian. So the argument of land ownership that competed with the rightful French landowners becomes a subject of debate with the French nobleman and the Immigrated Albigensians.

What is not presented here in the matter of coercion, is that the Catholic Church is the main component which civilized these particular diverse members of society when they were barbarians. The conversion did not come by coercion, but by the blood of Catholic Saints and Martrys which speaks of a history long before the Albigensian heresy infected this populace.

In defense of the Albigensians, these heretical Catholics became defiant of the French secular powers abusing the powers of the bishop’s and their priests who were many times selected by the secular powers or influenced the Pope to approve the French’s selected Bishop who favored the support of the secular powers in an easy life and asceticism, which the Albigensians disapproved of.

The Church answered this difficult political situation to address the Albigensian heresy by sending St. Dominic who practiced what he preached from the monastic life and saintly life lived example of following Christ. St. Dominic’s true Catholic practice from his ultimately approved holy orders convinced many of the Albigensians to repent and return back to the Church. NOT by coercion! but by a lived Christian Example practiced from a life in a true Catholic Saint who never took his white hat off.

The Albigensians were not immigrants. The term Albigensian Crusade took its name from the town of Albi, in the south central part of what came to be France, though the movement in the Languedoc region was more centered on Toulouse.The Albigensian heresy, like its Cathar cousin, was spread, not by immigration or invasion, but by conversion. It was ideas that spread, in this particular case, into the southern portion of what became France.

I have a feeling I’m going to be rereading the books, if this keeps up.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Albigensians were not immigrants. The term Albigensian Crusade took its name from the town of Albi, in the south central part of what came to be France, though the movement in the Languedoc region was more centered on Toulouse.The Albigensian heresy, like its Cathar cousin, was spread, not by immigration or invasion, but by conversion. It was ideas that spread, in this particular case, into the southern portion of what became France.

I have a feeling I’m going to be rereading the books, if this keeps up.

GKC

Sorry if you mistook my thought relating to the existing Albigensians at the time as being immigrants.

My thought related to the time before any Albigensians existed to land in question, which I introduced both the heresy and the barbarians the Church converted with her own blood.

**The Albigensian heresy came from an earlier heresy of Manichaen who’s members were imported from Bulgaria in the Byzantine Empire, who were Bogomils where our OP gets the name relation of Cathars to Albigensian. **

My point to the OP is the price paid by the Catholic Church early on, for theses Catholic souls who entered the Albigensian heresy, and the many who returned to the Church by St. Dominic’s Gospel living and preaching.

 

[GKC]

Sorry if you mistook my thought relating to the existing Albigensians at the time as being immigrants.

My thought related to the time before any Albigensians existed to land in question, which I introduced both the heresy and the barbarians the Church converted with her own blood.

**The Albigensian heresy came from an earlier heresy of Manichaen who’s members were imported from Bulgaria in the Byzantine Empire, who were Bogomils where our OP gets the name relation of Cathars to Albigensian. **

My point to the OP is the price paid by the Catholic Church early on, for theses Catholic souls who entered the Albigensian heresy, and the many who returned to the Church by St. Dominic’s Gospel living and preaching.

And the Bogomils, likely (the entire history of the dualistic heresy is murky) were influenced by the Paulicians, and Marcionism. Mani was slightly after Marcion, as a dualist believer, but it is his name that is most closely associated with the overall movement.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And the Bogomils, likely (the entire history of the dualistic heresy is murky) were influenced by the Paulicians, and Marcionism. Mani was slightly after Marcion, as a dualist believer, but it is his name that is most closely associated with the overall movement.

GKC

I find much to discuss here as well as to debate from this history. Suffice it to say, from these historical heresies. We find the Catholic Church existing, evangelizing and defending the apostolic faith, not coercing the apostolic faith. It is clear by the living witnesses from the Saints and Martyrs who did not coerce any one into believing or converting.

I believe the OP contradicts history with a false pretense of combining what belongs to God and what belongs to the Caesars (secular powers of the world). When the Catholic Church herself struggles to maintain peace and the prevention of killing the innocence in order to preserve life at all costs and at all times.

 

[GKC]

I find much to discuss here as well as to debate from this history. Suffice it to say, from these historical heresies. We find the Catholic Church existing, evangelizing and defending the apostolic faith, not coercing the apostolic faith. It is clear by the living witnesses from the Saints and Martyrs who did not coerce any one into believing or converting.

I believe the OP contradicts history with a false pretense of combining what belongs to God and what belongs to the Caesars (secular powers of the world). When the Catholic Church herself struggles to maintain peace and the prevention of killing the innocence in order to preserve life at all costs and at all times.

I found the history of the Abigensian conflict, rather than the historical evolution of dualism in Europe, in general, fascinating enough to acquire 4-5 books directly on that history, and gather up a dozen or so more general histories of the period, to lean more of it. Three of the titles I found useful are listed above.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I found the history of the Abigensian conflict,

That is why I stated it is a subject of debate and much discussion.
As it relates to the OP. The OP confuses the original intent of the crusade and what was done outside of the original intent of the crusade in the Holy lands, was done in the spirit of the crusade to combat heresy in the west.

It should be noted that many holding to the Albignensian heresy were from Albi. Although originally it was the Bogomils from Bulgaria in the Byzantine Empire who long held a Manichaean dualism. They were also called Cathars a name derived from the Greek for “pure” or Albignesians referencing the town of Albi in southern France.

What I find contradicting especially from the OP who has not presented during the Albigensian heresy, times were changing on three fronts. 1.demographics 2.economics of trade and wealth which contributed to the growth and wealth of cities to which this new change of wealth emerged with a name Bourgeoisie, which is a new class of merchants which means “those who live in the city”. 3. Conflict between the French nobleman land owners and the Monarchy.

This three class society would ultimately lead up to the French revolution. When the Bourgeoisie new found wealth in trade and political power would ally themselves with the Monarchy against the excessive power of high nobility.

When we view the Albigensian heresy period with the view of what lead to the French revolution. Which overcame both the Monarchy and the nobility. We can begin to see a clear picture of the Northern Nobles invading Southern France under the guise of a spirited crusade. What is hidden, is the power and wealth struggle beginning to surface between this new class of trade and economics with the nobles who use their military sources to hang on to their wealth which was land owner ship.

The OP misses the victory of the Albigensian heresy period of secular economical living of trade which was in opposition to the French nobility. When the nobles used the spirit of the crusades to combat the Albigensian heresy within their lands in order to gain and or retake land ownership. There is much more than a false view of coercion by the Church going on during this time than the OP misleads.

The OP falsely blames the Church of coercion to give the clarion call of crusade against the Albigensian heresy, which when viewed in all of it’s history. We find a new wealth class being introduced which ultimately overcame the crown and the nobles.

What I find contradicting is most non-Catholic historians especially protestant historians. Take credit of Protestantism beginning with this Albigensian heresy, when Protestantism did not exist yet for another 300± years.

The spirit of the Albigensian heresy resurfaced later again in the protestant reformation. But with a new poison which abused the word freedom in such a way that separated brethren from brethren, fathers from sons, and mothers from daughters. Yet the Catholic church charred and bruised but she remains rock without coercing converts or believers to believe and follow the original apostolic faith handed down from Jesus and His apostles.

In conclusion the Albigensian dualistic division of the world into material (bad) and spiritual (good) remained a heresy which mirrored previous defeated heresies within her members.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

My point to the OP is the price paid by the Catholic Church early on, for theses Catholic souls who entered the Albigensian heresy, and the many who returned to the Church by St. Dominic’s Gospel living and preaching.

St. Dominic was a great man who began a great order, and it went on to do great things. But it is highly inaccurate to describe his initial results as “many who returned to the Church.” Actually, it was very few who returned to the Church, unacceptably few as a matter of fact. In spite of the exceptional character of St. Dominic, he and his were simply not at all effective in convincing Albigensians to become Catholic.

“Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess.”
newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

“Dominic enthusiastically engaged the Albigenses in theological exposition. The thorough training and education that he had received now proved of inestimable value to him in his encounters with the ‘heretics’. Unable to refute his arguments or counteract the influence of his preaching, they visited their hatred upon him by means of repeated insults and threats. But Dominic also learned various preaching techniques from the Albigenses which he incorporated into his own method.
Innocent III had originally sent the Dominican monks to try to convince the Albigenses, by public debate, of the error of their ways. But they were unsuccessful and the region remained firmly under the Albigensian influence.”
members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen/files/lyrics/dominiqueNotes.html

If you look, I don’t believe you’ll be able to find even one source that says St. Dominic was even moderately successful in wiping the Albigensians off the map through persuasion and conversion.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I find much to discuss here as well as to debate from this history. Suffice it to say, from these historical heresies. We find the Catholic Church existing, evangelizing and defending the apostolic faith, not coercing the apostolic faith. It is clear by the living witnesses from the Saints and Martyrs who did not coerce any one into believing or converting.

Both of these things happened. It was one and then the other. On one hand, St. Dominic was an amazing man who basically did no wrong, yet he was unsuccessful in making a noticeable difference in the larger religious landscape. Then after that, Pope Innocent III used ecclesiastical authority in ways that an ultramontanist would be proud of, but not someone who’s committed to the protection of human rights.

I believe the OP contradicts history with a false pretense of combining what belongs to God and what belongs to the Caesars (secular powers of the world). When the Catholic Church herself struggles to maintain peace and the prevention of killing the innocence in order to preserve life at all costs and at all times.

I might counter by saying that it is actually the ultramontanist perspective that comes at us with a false pretence that conflates what belongs to God and what belongs to “the Caesars.”

 

[badnewsbarrett]

The OP misses the victory of the Albigensian heresy period of secular economical living of trade which was in opposition to the French nobility. When the nobles used the spirit of the crusades to combat the Albigensian heresy within their lands in order to gain and or retake land ownership. There is much more than a false view of coercion by the Church going on during this time than the OP misleads.

The OP falsely blames the Church of coercion to give the clarion call of crusade against the Albigensian heresy, which when viewed in all of it’s history. We find a new wealth class being introduced which ultimately overcame the crown and the nobles.

You missed the part about indulgences. Do you remember the indulgences?

There was a consistent pattern, an annual turn of events that happened consistently throughout this Crusade for as long as indulgences were available for this particular struggle. 40 days of service were required in order to obtain an indulgence, after that men would fight merely for pay or for some form of patriotism or duty- so this is what would happen. Each year, beginning in March and April, a whole horde of soldiers would start to show up. Large armies would fight epic battles (well, not epic as much as indiscriminate killing of both Catholics and Cathars in order to send the message that they weren’t playing around), and then by May or June, just as it was really starting to get hot, 9 out of 10 soldiers would accept their promise of blessing in the afterlife and return home. (And if we’re being honest, those indulgences didn’t actually mean anything real or truly affect anything about them in the afterlife- I hope we can agree on that? Can we all accept that these soldiers were motivated by something that was ultimately a false premise?)

At any rate, those months of spring were the city-conquering months, then almost everyone went home and the rest of the year was spent defending those gains with a skeleton crew.

I think you missed that part when you were talking about who went where and exactly why that was. I just wanted to point you in the direction of that pattern, which remained in place until the pope stopped giving indulgences for that crusade and started giving them in exchange for military service more to the east.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you look, I don’t believe you’ll be able to find even one source that says St. Dominic was even moderately successful in wiping the Albigensians off the map through persuasion and conversion.

I accept your challenge and give you a recorded history by eyewitnesses followed and confirmed by heavens signs and wonders.

At this time of great need in the Church, when men were getting tired of fighting for the Truth and the laity were being deceived into error, God raised up Saint Dominic. St. Dominic fought the Albigensian heresy with all his might, while striving to convert the heretics and protect and instruct the ignorant. His brilliant speeches got him nowhere and his efforts where fruitless. The error spread and it seemed like Truth would be defeated. St. Dominic turned to the Mother of God for help. He fasted, prayed and did penance for the Albigensians for three whole days. At the end of this period, he was so exhausted by the severity of his penances that he collapsed onto the floor. It was then that Our Lady appeared to him and gave him the fifteen mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary. She said it was the “weapon the Blessed Trinity wanted to use to reform the world.” She told St. Dominic to preach her Rosary if he wanted to “reach these hardened souls and win them over to God.” His heart full of joy, St. Dominic thanked his Queen and immediately set out to preach the Rosary. The difference was night and day. The grace given through the recitation of the Holy Rosary was so incredible, the only explanation was the intercession of the Mother of God. St. Dominic was greatly encouraged by the numerous conversions and continued to proclaim and promote the power of Our Lady’s Rosary. Our story begins during one of his many sermons about the Rosary.
Once, in a place near Carcassone, **over 12,000 people gathered to hear St. Dominic preach about the Holy Rosary. Before these thousands of witnesses, **a few men interrupted the priest’s sermon and pressed their way through the large crowd. “Father Dominic!,” they cried and the immediate circle of people surrounding the Saint split, creating a generous opening for the men who sought him. Hardly had Dominic seen them when he knew the purpose of their visit. In the company of these newcomers was an Albigensian, well-known for not only refusing to say the Holy Rosary, but publicly attacking its sacred 15 mysteries. The heretic instantly recoiled at the Saint’s gaze and struggled violently to flee from his presence. The Albigensian was possessed by devils and his friends had brought the poor wretch to Saint Dominic for an exorcism. The devils inside him knew this and dreaded the exorcism which would banish them from the heretic’s body and back into hell. St. Dominic, instead of beginning the exorcism right away decided to ask the devils some questions in front of over 12,000 witnesses. In-spite of themselves, the devils were painfully forced to answer the Saint’s questions. When he asked how many devils possessed this wretched man, they responded “15,000”. The people shuddered and St. Dominic inquired as to why 15,000. To that, the devils said that every legion (thousand) of them had a right to him for each mystery of the Holy Rosary which he so foolishly and pridefully had attacked. The evil spirits continued to speak, saying how much they hated St. Dominic more than anyone else on earth, for the souls which he rescued from their wicked snares through the devotion of the Holy Rosary. They said that whenever he preached the Holy Rosary, he put fear and horror into the very depths of hell. The people were astonished to see the significance of the Rosary, which Saint Dominic had for so long, tried to convince them of. As the devils finished speaking, everyone watched and waited. Dominic wasn’t done just yet. He carefully placed his Rosary around the possessed man’s neck and asked the devils his final question.

“Who, of all the Saints in Heaven, is the one feared most by all of you, and who should therefore be the most loved and revered by men?” Then came a reaction that even St. Dominic couldn’t have expected. The heretic threw himself back violently and began acting wildly. The devils within him let out such unearthly screams that seemed to echo from the very depths of hell. The thousands of people were seized with horror and a cold fear began to fill all their veins. As the demons’ shrieks continued to fill the air, many of the people fell to the ground, faint from fear…

catholickingdom.com/People/Lady_Gwen/Archive/(4)-devils_fear/story-4_text1.html
You are hardpressed to deny the eye witness accounts of St. Dominics weapon he received from heaven for the conversion of the Albigensians and sinners.
see more here; www.praytherosaryapostolate.com/stdominicandrosary.htm

At the very beginning of his sermon, an appalling storm broke out,
the earth shook, the sun was darkened, and there was so much thunder and lightning that all were very much afraid.

Even greater was their fear when, looking at a picture of our Lady
exposed in a prominent place, they saw her raise her arms to heaven three times to call down God’s vengeance upon them if they failed to be converted, to amend their lives, and seek the protection of the holy Mother of God.

God wished, by means of these supernatural phenomena,
to spread the new devotion of the holy Rosary
and to make it more widely known

Question to you is? When does Truth lead by coercion? When you give to God what belongs to God as St. Dominic does and give to the Caesars what belongs to the Caesars, economics, land, secular wealth, political powers, you find Truth standing alone under persecution being assisted by heavenly signs and wonders without coercion.

 

[wmscott]

So I guess I would like to know if you can cite when the last time the Catholic Church forcible silenced, banished, imprisoned, or executed a person or persons on account of their religious beliefs, including and especially beliefs which fall within the scope of Christianity but are dissident beliefs, doctrines, or points of view.

Since the crusades was somewhere between 1096 – 1272, and the Reformation was some 300 years later, I guess for my education I would ask the same question quoted above but ask it in a way that asks “Since the Reformation” and the address the above question. thanks