Religious coercion

[ericc]

The topic is religious coercion, specifically religious coercion for which the Catholic Church is responsible. I will do my best to define terms appropriately and ask questions without attacking Catholicism as a whole. It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to “prove” that a religion is false- and this is not what I am doing. I will define terms and ask specific questions which are not to that effect.

.

But what is the purpose of this thread? How bad things happen? A better topic would be “Evil” or “Why people do bad things?”. People who do bad things would be judged and punished by God himself. You can’t read the minds of people in the past why they do certain things, only God knows their hearts. Who am I to judged?

But if your intent is to merely inflame sentiments, well, I think you should take your business elsewhere. If your topic has real value add, like preventing bad things from happening again, I say go for it. So state your objective. But from what you have written, you have selected the Catholic Church for target practice. I doubt very much this forum is the right place to handle “issues of religious coercion ought to be handled as a part of the historical record”.

1. What historical record? History is recorded on history textbooks and not forums. Which other forums have you frequented to obtain such historical records? Might be worth a visit to see the value of such a topic.
2. And why the Catholic Church and not other churches or other religions. Are you going to handle those separately in another thread or are they not part of your historical record?
3. What is your objective? No one do these things anymore in today’s political reality. Lessons have been learnt. There are “other” religions that still do these sort of things. So shouldn’t you be taking your business there?

At the moment i am just a curious bystander of this topic header.

 

[rinnie]

Seems to me you are trying to put the sins of Judas at the foot of Christ here.

Lets make this thread real short, lets talk about the mistakes made by Christ, instead by humans who make mistakes.

Christ never had religious coercion, Remember how Peter cut off the ear of the soldier who came to get Christ, Christ said stop, and put the ear back on the soldier.

Peter as great and loyal as he was to Christ, and we can all say his faith was great, Peter was not perfect, he was human.

So first pick us a human leader of ANY Church besides Christ, that was perfect in every way and then we can talk.

Christ promised us his Church was perfect because it was led by the Holy Spirit, he promised us when the leaders spoke in HIS VOICE they would be perfect. Where did he ever say his leaders would have free will taken away, and would be perfect like him, and free from sin???

Because that’s really where this is going.
Bottom line we had ONE PERFECT HUMAN LEADER, JESUS CHRIST. He was Human in ever way but sin, and Divine.

So after him, you can begin to pick any other human leader of the Church apart, and on many accounts will be correct. But whats the point? We would be in a bickering match forever.

Remember what Mamma says, confess your own sins, and let us confess ours. God won’t hold you accountable for others sins only yours.

Why bother condemning our brothers mistakes, would it not be more productive to build up the Church started by Christ instead of tearing it down?

 

[badnewsbarrett]

In that case, why don’t you frame the discussion as being about religious coercion in general, no matter who is (or is alleged to be) responsible for it?

That might be a bit too broad. And for what it’s worth, I have been trying (I emphasize trying) to talk to various kinds of Muslims about religious coercion in countries governed by either an Islamic state or one that has Islam as a state religion, and I’ve had very little luck. It went reasonably well just one time, but for the most part it hasn’t been good.

I’m hoping that Catholics, compared to Muslims, can have a real discussion about this. We talk about the Reformation all the time on here, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli are frequently recurring topics. Let’s talk about religious coercion, the backstory of that coercion as we reach the Reformation era, identify proponents and opponents of religious coercion during the 16th and 17th centuries, and try to determine exactly how it was that Catholicism came to be so consistently and broadly non-coercive in comparison to how it was previously.

Are any of you familiar with the papal bull Zelo Domus Dei? That might be worthy of some discussion.

It has been 500 years since the Reformation, but we still find that modern-day Catholics question whether or not they can handle a frank historical discussion of religious coercion as it pertains to the Catholic Church and the ways in which it has handled dissent. I can’t help but question it a bit myself, but I do sincerely hope that Catholics on this forum can give a better showing than the Muslims I have attempted to discuss the same topic with.

 

[Duane1966]

The topic is religious coercion, specifically religious coercion for which the Catholic Church is responsible. I will do my best to define terms appropriately and ask questions without attacking Catholicism as a whole. It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to “prove” that a religion is false- and this is not what I am doing. I will define terms and ask specific questions which are not to that effect.

First, you may be wondering, what do I mean by religious coercion and how could the Catholic Church be responsible for this? What I mean by that is the forcible silencing, banishment, imprisonment, or death of 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. This has very little to do with how Catholics throughout their history have interacted with Muslims or Jews or pagans or the irreligious. This has very much to do with how the Catholic Church has handled dissent and how it’s handled heretics. Now, how could the Catholic Church be held responsible for religious coercion? Well, let me put it this way. The Catholic Church takes full credit (and rightly so) for fighting, condemning, and silencing all sorts of heresies. It takes full credit (and rightly so) for ending heresies and maintaining doctrinal unity within itself. All credit goes to the Catholic Church. Now, if one of those heretics happens to be banished and forcibly removed from his country of origin- if 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. Generally speaking, a person or entity cannot take all the credit for fighting someone in the interest of silencing them and then selectively avoid all the blame for how it’s done if the methods happen to be coercive.

My question, in general, is this. From a Catholic perspective, how do you (really, truly) interact with some of these examples of coercion and fit it into the overall narrative of Catholics fighting heretics? If you were to take a step back from individual events and fit it into a larger narrative, what would it look like?

I have a few specific examples as well. I’ll start with the Arianism and Trinitarianism. Athanasius and Arius were both banished, Athanasius (basically) because Emperor Constantine and his son were both Arians, and Arius was banished (basically) because the Catholic Church was Trinitarian. More specifically, Athanasius was exiled once by Constantine to Trier, twice by Constantinius to Rome and the Egyptian desert, once by Julian (who acted coercively against Christianity as a whole), and once by Valens, who also favored Arius. I do not hold the Catholic Church responsible for any of these, but I use these examples of a baseline for what religious coercion can look like.

Arius did not live as long as Athanasius, and the circumstances of his death are exceptional and highly questionable. He may have been killed on account of his religious beliefs; he was certainly exiled to Illyricum and only permitted to return once he altered his teaching a bit.

Next, Catharism. In fairness, Popes Eugene III and Innocent III tried a variety of peaceful methods in attempts to halt the progress of Catharism (or Albigensianism). This also gave rise to the Dominican order- quite a fantastic order, but mostly unsuccessful in converting Cathars peacefully. Then in 1208, a papal legate was murdered. (Murder is wrong). This was the tipping point that led to the Albigensian Crusade, which Pope Innocent III is entirely responsible for initiating. For 20 years, Catholics killed Cathars on account of refusing to convert for all those years, and Pope Innocent III effectively claimed control of whatever land the Cathars owned, offering it to any French nobleman willing to fight. There were eight local church councils that condemned Catharism, the last of which included the statement that all Albigensians “should be imprisoned and their property confiscated.” (newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm). The murder of the legate was wrong, but so is religious coercion.

Finally, Protestantism. It is very dense and complicated, and there was much in the way of religious coercion on both sides. But in the end, everyone learned to get along without religious coercion- for the most part, anyway- and to finally start seeing it as a bad thing. Meaning it’s something that should never be done, even if you are right and some other person is stubborn. Religious coercion is still wrong.

Coercive things have happened, let’s evaluate them in the interest of a more well-informed historical perspective. And let’s do so without making it a debate about if the Catholic Church is evil. Let me put that to bed right quick- the Catholic Church is a good church that has done a few bad things. Please take note of that, I just said the Catholic Church is a good church. But now, let’s talk about how some of these issues of religious coercion ought to be handled as a part of the historical record.

I thought Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of the Catholic Church like twenty years ago. I am a direct descendant of the Albigensians , and I forgave the Catholic Church, (and my Albigensian ancestors for their beliefs) a loooooooooong time ago.

 

[Duane1966]

That might be a bit too broad. And for what it’s worth, I have been trying (I emphasize trying) to talk to various kinds of Muslims about religious coercion in countries governed by either an Islamic state or one that has Islam as a state religion, and I’ve had very little luck. It went reasonably well just one time, but for the most part it hasn’t been good.

I’m hoping that Catholics, compared to Muslims, can have a real discussion about this. We talk about the Reformation all the time on here, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli are frequently recurring topics. Let’s talk about religious coercion, the backstory of that coercion as we reach the Reformation era, identify proponents and opponents of religious coercion during the 16th and 17th centuries, and try to determine exactly how it was that Catholicism came to be so consistently and broadly non-coercive in comparison to how it was previously.

Are any of you familiar with the papal bull Zelo Domus Dei? That might be worthy of some discussion.

It has been 500 years since the Reformation, but we still find that modern-day Catholics question whether or not they can handle a frank historical discussion of religious coercion as it pertains to the Catholic Church and the ways in which it has handled dissent. I can’t help but question it a bit myself, but I do sincerely hope that Catholics on this forum can give a better showing than the Muslims I have attempted to discuss the same topic with.

What about Zelo Domus Dei? What question do you have about it?

 

[Peter_J]

I thought Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of the Catholic Church like twenty years ago.

I wouldn’t say that too often if I were you: some of our fellows Catholic posters might be trying to forget it. uch:

 

[Abu]

Peter J #26
Originally Posted by Duane1966
I thought Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of the Catholic Church like twenty years ago.
I wouldn’t say that too often if I were you: some of our fellows Catholic posters might be trying to forget it.

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.”

 

[Duane1966]

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. We can look back at all sorts of things in history and say: “Wow how could anyone believe that was justifiable?”

But can I say that if I walked in those same shoes (knowing my weaknesses), that I would have done anything different? Of course I can hope I would, but I cannot say with any kind of certainty, nor can anyone else.

At least with Catholicism, all us Catholics share in the sorrows of Her past members sins. And we have a leader (the pope), with the authority to apologize for the sins of Her members. (is that better Abu?)

Who speaks with authority for Protestants, and apologizes for the Sand Creek Massacre?
Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! … I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians. … Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.
—- Col. John Milton Chivington (Methodist preacher)

Or for this, done to the Irish? After all, even though one could argue it was done by the government, we all know the truth, it was mostly because the Irish were Catholics. Taken from this link, though you can find it just about anywhere on the internet: noraid.com/Holocaust.htm

** GREAT HUNGER IN IRELAND THAT CAUSED WIDESPREAD STARVATION FROM 1845-1852. HOWEVER, MANY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THAT, AT THE SAME TIME, IRISH FARMS WERE PRODUCING PLENTY OF OTHER FOODS INCLUDING CORN, WHEAT, BARLEY, AND BEEF. THIS FOOD WAS CARTED AWAY BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT PAST THE STARVING MILLIONS OF MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND THEN TAKEN TO WEALTHY ENGLAND.

SOME PROTESTANT CHURCH MISSIONS IN ENGLAND SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION BY TRYING TO “PROSELYTIZE” THE STARVING CATHOLICS.

THE STARVING VICTIMS WERE OFFERED FOOD IN RETURN FOR RENOUNCING THEIR CATHOLIC FAITH AND CONVERTING. DURING THE FAMINE THERE WERE MORE THAN 125 MISSIONS IN IRELAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVERTING CATHOLICS.**

**In 1520, when Henry VIII broke with Rome, it added religion to the bias against the Catholic Irish. Under Henry’s daughter, the murderous Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603), the killing fields of Ireland ran red with the blood of innocent victims. It is estimated 1.5 million Catholic Irish peasants were starved or “put to the sword” and much of their lands seized by English predators, while she reigned.[9]

By the time the zealot Oliver Cromwell arrived on the scene, the Irish were ripe for more carnage .* “It has pleased God to bless our endeavors,”* he wrote of the mass slaughter in 1649, by his Puritan troops of 3,552 Irish inhabitants of the seaport town of Drogheda, just north of Dublin. He pompously continued, “I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches.”[10] This Drogheda massacre is one of the leading examples of the insidious British policy of ethnic cleansing in Ireland. Another is Cromwell’s sacking of Wexford and the killing of 2,000 of its citizens.

The infamous “Cromwellian Settlements” followed his conquest of Ireland. Millions of acres of land (41 percent of Antrim, 26 percent of Down, 34 percent of Armagh and 38 percent of Monaghan) were allocated to English Protestant settlers. The landowners of Irish birth were either killed, banished or forced out to Connaught in the west of Ireland, where it was hoped “they would starve to death.”[11] A Cromwell biographer labeled this massive confiscation of Irish lands, “by far the most wholesale effort to impose on Ireland the Protestant faith and English ascendancy.”[12] The British policy of colonizing Ireland with Protestants still has repercussions which are felt today on the streets of Belfast.

From 1649 to 1652, one-third of the population of Ireland was destroyed. Petty, an English historian says, “660,000 Irish people were killed.”[13] Twenty thousand Irish boys and girls also were sold into slavery to the West Indies. The Irish peasant farmers that survived were forced to pay rent to their usurpers. Once prosperous home grown industries were also destroyed because they “competed with British factories.”[14]

The memory of the holocausts under Elizabeth I and Cromwell have been forever seared into the psyche of the Irish race. Cromwell’s evil idea that Irish Catholics were “barbarous wretches” has, too, unfortunately, passed into the British mindset.[15]

Parliament reacted to Cromwell’s crime against humanity in Ireland by passing an infamous Resolution that legitimized ethnic cleansing. It stated, “The House doth approve the execution done at Drogheda, as an act both of justice to them and mercy to others who may be warned by it.”[1**

Now that is what I call religious coercion.

There are many more, I can go on, if you want.

I know, we can always just say: “that’s them, not my branch of Protestantism.”

I can show you religious coercion all over the United States (yes in the land of religious freedom), by state governments into the 20th. century. Guess what? 200 years from now there will still be religious coercion. (Unless, as my guru says, the world is going to end on Feb. 40th)**

 

[Peter_J]

I thought Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of the Catholic Church like twenty years ago.

I wouldn’t say that too often if I were you: some of our fellows Catholic posters might be trying to forget it. uch:

He didn’t – see post #20 – the facts again:

Indeed. Tongue-in-cheek aside, I too noticed the imprecise wording “sins of the Catholic Church” and thought about commenting on it, but then decided not to

 

[Picky_Picky]

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. We can look back at all sorts of things in history and say: “Wow how could anyone believe that was justifiable?”

But can I say that if I walked in those same shoes (knowing my weaknesses), that I would have done anything different? Of course I can hope I would, but I cannot say with any kind of certainty, nor can anyone else.

At least with Catholicism, all us Catholics share in the sorrows of Her past members sins. And we have a leader (the pope), with the authority to apologize for the sins of Her members. (is that better Abu?)

Who speaks with authority for Protestants, and apologizes for the Sand Creek Massacre?
Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! … I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians. … Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.
—- Col. John Milton Chivington (Methodist preacher)

Or for this, done to the Irish? After all, even though one could argue it was done by the government, we all know the truth, it was mostly because the Irish were Catholics. Taken from this link, though you can find it just about anywhere on the internet: noraid.com/Holocaust.htm

** GREAT HUNGER IN IRELAND THAT CAUSED WIDESPREAD STARVATION FROM 1845-1852. HOWEVER, MANY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THAT, AT THE SAME TIME, IRISH FARMS WERE PRODUCING PLENTY OF OTHER FOODS INCLUDING CORN, WHEAT, BARLEY, AND BEEF. THIS FOOD WAS CARTED AWAY BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT PAST THE STARVING MILLIONS OF MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND THEN TAKEN TO WEALTHY ENGLAND.

SOME PROTESTANT CHURCH MISSIONS IN ENGLAND SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION BY TRYING TO “PROSELYTIZE” THE STARVING CATHOLICS.

THE STARVING VICTIMS WERE OFFERED FOOD IN RETURN FOR RENOUNCING THEIR CATHOLIC FAITH AND CONVERTING. DURING THE FAMINE THERE WERE MORE THAN 125 MISSIONS IN IRELAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVERTING CATHOLICS.**

**In 1520, when Henry VIII broke with Rome, it added religion to the bias against the Catholic Irish. Under Henry’s daughter, the murderous Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603), the killing fields of Ireland ran red with the blood of innocent victims. It is estimated 1.5 million Catholic Irish peasants were starved or “put to the sword” and much of their lands seized by English predators, while she reigned.[9]

By the time the zealot Oliver Cromwell arrived on the scene, the Irish were ripe for more carnage .* “It has pleased God to bless our endeavors,”*** he wrote of the mass slaughter in 1649, by his Puritan troops of 3,552 Irish inhabitants of the seaport town of Drogheda, just north of Dublin. He pompously continued, “I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches.”[10] This Drogheda massacre is one of the leading examples of the insidious British policy of ethnic cleansing in Ireland. Another is Cromwell’s sacking of Wexford and the killing of 2,000 of its citizens.

The infamous “Cromwellian Settlements” followed his conquest of Ireland. Millions of acres of land (41 percent of Antrim, 26 percent of Down, 34 percent of Armagh and 38 percent of Monaghan) were allocated to English Protestant settlers. The landowners of Irish birth were either killed, banished or forced out to Connaught in the west of Ireland, where it was hoped “they would starve to death.”[11] A Cromwell biographer labeled this massive confiscation of Irish lands, “by far the most wholesale effort to impose on Ireland the Protestant faith and English ascendancy.”[12] The British policy of colonizing Ireland with Protestants still has repercussions which are felt today on the streets of Belfast.

From 1649 to 1652, one-third of the population of Ireland was destroyed. Petty, an English historian says, “660,000 Irish people were killed.”[13] Twenty thousand Irish boys and girls also were sold into slavery to the West Indies. The Irish peasant farmers that survived were forced to pay rent to their usurpers. Once prosperous home grown industries were also destroyed because they “competed with British factories.”[14]

The memory of the holocausts under Elizabeth I and Cromwell have been forever seared into the psyche of the Irish race. Cromwell’s evil idea that Irish Catholics were “barbarous wretches” has, too, unfortunately, passed into the British mindset.[15]

Parliament reacted to Cromwell’s crime against humanity in Ireland by passing an infamous Resolution that legitimized ethnic cleansing. It stated, “The House doth approve the execution done at Drogheda, as an act both of justice to them and mercy to others who may be warned by it.”[1**

Now that is what I call religious coercion.

There are many more, I can go on, if you want.

I know, we can always just say: “that’s them, not my branch of Protestantism.”

I can show you religious coercion all over the United States (yes in the land of religious freedom), by state governments into the 20th. century. Guess what? 200 years from now there will still be religious coercion. (Unless, as my guru says, the world is going to end on Feb. 40th)
I am not going to defend the history of my country in Ireland, and some of what you have quoted is true. But I would counsel seriously against taking at face value statements on the website of Noraid.

 

[GKC]

I am not going to defend the history of my country in Ireland, and some of what you have quoted is true. But I would counsel seriously against taking at face value statements on the website of Noraid.

The section beginning “In 1520, when Henry broke from Rome,…” is particularly noteworthy. It is obviously a cut and paste (note the footnote numbers, not sourced, and the whole is readily found on similar sites, sometimes appearing to be the work of the poster, sometimes obviously an extended quote). While I have, somewhere, a couple of the sources that those orphaned footnotes should connect to, I am not suggesting that I could refute them. As Picky says, it was rough times, with rough men. But really…1520?

GKC

 

[Duane1966]

The section beginning “In 1520, when Henry broke from Rome,…” is particularly noteworthy. It is obviously a cut and paste (note the footnote numbers, not sourced, and the whole is readily found on similar sites, sometimes appearing to be the work of the poster, sometimes obviously an extended quote). While I have, somewhere, a couple of the sources that those orphaned footnotes should connect to, I am not suggesting that I could refute them. As Picky says, it was rough times, with rough men. But really…1520?

GKC

Agreed, it was rough times, which was why I prefaced it with this:**I am not sure what the point of this thread is. We can look back at all sorts of things in history and say: "Wow how could anyone believe that was justifiable?"But can I say that if I walked in those same shoes (knowing my weaknesses), that I would have done anything different? Of course I can hope I would, but I cannot say with any kind of certainty, nor can anyone else.

 

[Duane1966]

My point was NOT to pick on any one group. My point is you can pick just about any time in history, and you will find religious coercion. I once again did a horrible job of representing my point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

badnewsbarrett;12695617]The topic is religious coercion, specifically religious coercion for which the Catholic Church is responsible

.

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.

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.

My question, in general, is this. From a Catholic perspective, how do you (really, truly) interact with some of these examples of coercion and fit it into the overall narrative of Catholics fighting heretics? If you were to take a step back from individual events and fit it into a larger narrative, what would it look like?

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.

Next, Catharism. In fairness, Popes Eugene III and Innocent III tried a variety of peaceful methods in attempts to halt the progress of Catharism (or Albigensianism). This also gave rise to the Dominican order- quite a fantastic order, but mostly unsuccessful in converting Cathars peacefully. Then in 1208, a papal legate was murdered. (Murder is wrong). This was the tipping point that led to the Albigensian Crusade, which Pope Innocent III is entirely responsible for initiating. For 20 years, Catholics killed Cathars on account of refusing to convert for all those years, and Pope Innocent III effectively claimed control of whatever land the Cathars owned, offering it to any French nobleman willing to fight. There were eight local church councils that condemned Catharism, the last of which included the statement that all Albigensians “should be imprisoned and their property confiscated.” (newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm). The murder of the legate was wrong, but so is religious coercion.

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.

Coercive things have happened, let’s evaluate them in the interest of a more well-informed historical perspective.

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.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Coercion in itself isn’t actually moral or immoral. It simply means forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do either through force or the threat of force. Are you talking about the unjust or just application of coercion to heretics or both?

In a certain sense, you are absolutely right- coercion in and of itself is a basic function of government. It is the reason why we pay taxes, have drivers licenses, and make sure our car insurance doesn’t lapse- there are penalties for not doing these certain things, and it is the function of the state to enforce them. (This idea may have been lost of certain people who oppose the health insurance mandate, but that is a different conversation).

But this is a thread about religious coercion. In the interest of upholding religious freedom as a basic human right, I would argue that for all people in all places and at all times, religious coercion by any entity is something that all people should be protected from. Religious coercion is a special human-right-basic-freedom sort of issue. I don’t mind being told that I need to pay my car insurance, I recognize that as perfectly legitimate coercion. But anything or anyone who lays claim to rightly exercising some sort of religious coercion- that is where we start to have an issue.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

What about Zelo Domus Dei? What question do you have about it?

Ok, so after the wars of religion, the Peace of Augsburg and the Peace of Westphalia were the series of peace treaties that did not exactly end all violence, but they did set in place the basis for national self-determination and it was the first step in creating the concept of the modern nation-state. It didn’t exactly provide for individual religious freedom, but it did allow for individual rulers to determine which forms of Christianity would be allowed in their lands. Calvinism was given legal recognition for the first time, and certain concessions were made by the Hapsburgs- not all of which were followed through on, but in principle it meant Protestantism is here to stay.

Zelo Domus Dei is a papal bull issue by Innocent X on November 26, 1648 which condemned the Peace of Westphalia, declaring it “null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time.” NewAdvent (newadvent.org/cathen/08020b.htm) says that he declared null and void “those articles…which were detrimental to the Catholic religion,” however, so far I have been unable to find any original source that would indicate such specificity.

Oh, by the way, the papal bull was completely ignored by all the Catholic powers. They treated it as if it did not happen and it had no actual effect, and I only heard about it myself just recently. And I have been very interested in European history for quite some time.

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? Is it really as simple as an objection to the continued existence of Protestantism, or is there something more nuanced? 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? If so, what would you suggest as a more acceptable outcome to all of this Reformation-era conflict?

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?

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Is this one of those ‘my religion is better than yours’ topics?

Why not start a ‘my country is better than yours’ topic, too?

The logic is really quite similar. For example, you are essentially saying, 'how could you be Catholic because there were some Catholics that did bad things in the past? Is this logical? Is it fair to attack us for wrongs done 600 years ago? Is it our fault that there were bad Catholics many centuries ago? What about the majority of the priests, bishops and laypeople that carried the Church spiritually in those dark times? Shouldn’t they be given credit?

Using this same logic, I could say, 'how can you stand to be an American because of Americans that owned slaves 150 years ago?"

 

[Duane1966]

Using this same logic, I could say, 'how can you stand to be an American because of Americans that owned slaves 150 years ago?"

Was thinking the same thing.

 

[Duane1966]

Ok, so after the wars of religion, the Peace of Augsburg and the Peace of Westphalia were the series of peace treaties that did not exactly end all violence, but they did set in place the basis for national self-determination and it was the first step in creating the concept of the modern nation-state. It didn’t exactly provide for individual religious freedom, but it did allow for individual rulers to determine which forms of Christianity would be allowed in their lands. Calvinism was given legal recognition for the first time, and certain concessions were made by the Hapsburgs- not all of which were followed through on, but in principle it meant Protestantism is here to stay.

Zelo Domus Dei is a papal bull issue by Innocent X on November 26, 1648 which condemned the Peace of Westphalia, declaring it “null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time.” NewAdvent (newadvent.org/cathen/08020b.htm) says that he declared null and void “those articles…which were detrimental to the Catholic religion,” however, so far I have been unable to find any original source that would indicate such specificity.

Oh, by the way, the papal bull was completely ignored by all the Catholic powers. They treated it as if it did not happen and it had no actual effect, and I only heard about it myself just recently. And I have been very interested in European history for quite some time.

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? Is it really as simple as an objection to the continued existence of Protestantism, or is there something more nuanced? 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? If so, what would you suggest as a more acceptable outcome to all of this Reformation-era conflict?

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?

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

 

[Duane1966]

Augsburg (1555)? Both the rigorists and moderate theologians held that jure divino only ecclesiastics have any power to dispose of Church goods. Wangnereck held that property concessions could be made to the Protestants only with the express consent of the Pope. To reinforce his argument he taught that papal decisions in this matter were as infallible as in matters of faith. Since Rome was silent and no concessions in the matter could be expected from that quarter, the moderate theologians maintained that because of the necessities of the times Catholic rulers were not held by their ordinary obligation of appealing to the Pope. They had to drive the best bargain they could in the difficult circumstances. To this the consultores rigidiores could only respond that the Court theologians feared men but not God. The latter responded that peace, which was so necessary, could only be obtained by abandoning great territories to the Protestants. If necessity knows no law, this was a case in point.16 Up to 1648 diplomatic difficulties and the opposition of the extremists under Chigi held up the peace. In 1648, however, the brilliant victories of Conde and Turenne forced the Emperor Ferdinand III and Maximilian of Bavaria to listen to moderate counsel and make the heavy sacrifices which would render possible the conclusion of hostilities. The intransigents would have nothing of this. Chigi, who had spent four unhappy years as mediator, absented himself from the decisive sessions. His name does not appear in the Instrumentum Monasteriense as mediator with that of Alvisi Contarmi of Venice. It has been said, not without some truth, that the Pope in presiding at Münster through his delegate was conducting the funeral of the Middle Ages.17 Chigi’s abstention during the final negotiations and his protest against the peace when it was signed show that he must have seen the proceedings in somewhat the same light. The peace of Westphalia contained many stipulations concerning the Church; not all of them will concern us here. It was provided that in matters of religion a majority vote should no longer be held decisive in the Imperial Diet, but that such questions should be settled by amicable agreement. The Treaty of Passau (1552) and the Religious Peace of Augsburg (1555) were confirmed. Calvinism was given with Catholicism and Lutheranism the status of a legal religion, but no other form of cult was to be permitted in the Empire. The principle, “cuius regio, eius et religio,”’ was reaffirmed, and the jus reformandi was granted for ecclesiastical as well as secular territories under certain conditions. Catholics and Protestants, living under rulers of the opposite faith, were granted at least the right of conducting private worship and of educating their children at home or abroad in conformity with their own faith. They were not to be discriminated against in civil life, nor denied Christian burial, but were to be at liberty to emigrate, selling their estates or leaving them to be managed by others.18 Most of the free cities of the Empire were to be exclusively in Protestant hands and Catholic Church property was lost in all Protestant regions. In addition two archbishoprics, twelve bishoprics, and six abbeys, which had formerly been ecclesiastical states, were lost to the Church. When it is remembered that in addition the Empire lost nearly all effective control over the member States, one can see what a blow the peace was to Germany and the Catholic cause. It was some consolation that a final stop was put to the spread of Protestantism in the Empire by means of conversion in high places. Innocent X approved of Chigi’s protest and eventually in 1650 issued a Brief of protest, Zelo Domus Dei, which was retrodated to 1648. 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.19 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. The Congress, however, had foreseen the disturbing effect of the papal protest and inserted both at Osnabrück and Münster clauses which made the protests ineffective.20 Since the Catholic powers had taken the steps independently of the Pope, his protest was not heeded; indeed in Germany the Archbishop of Trier was the only ruler who published it. Innocent X was perhaps not unaware that his protest would be without avail. It has been suggested that he had to protest, since there was still a remote possibility…

to be continued