The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Picky_Picky]

If the plain words are what it meant, it is indeed lovely. Truth always is. I am more than willing to accept any corrections if what I wrote is wrong. If there are more than one possible interpretation, I am more than open to consider alternate meanings. However, you must demonstrate how that alternate interpretation arose from the words of the canon.

If my explanation is without error, why do you not accept it? Why do you state I am giving the canon the benefit of the doubt? That is what the words say isn’t it? Where does the doubt arise? Please do point that out.

That is what the canon says. Making those kind of statement is anathema.

The Church didn’t make a statement on that at all. She quotes that if someone were to make that kind of statement, that person may be anathemaed. You are conjecturing something which you think the Church may say. Which is irrelevant.

There is nothing to shift. This is how the Church tries to regulate proper behavior since Matthew 18:17.

At this stage, I am claiming that :

The Church says that the offender who says all those words in red which I highlighted previously is subject to anathema.

If you have an alternate version of what the canon means, then please share and we can discuss the language arrangement and structure to come up to your version.

This is not about coercion at all. Just what the language means. May I remind you again that the canon didn’t address the infant baptismal vow at all. Just on those who make such kinds of statements.

We can discuss the coercion matter when you have proven that coercion is in play here. Tell me your definition of coercion and we can go from there.

Well in context that is not the plain meaning of the words. This is one of 30 canons from the seventh session of Trent, and each of them is in this negative form, asserting a truth by denying its opposite.

“If any one saith (xxx) let him be anathema” means, in the language of Trent, “the opposite of (xxx) is the truth”. The 30 canons of the seventh session are not 30 different ways of discouraging the unauthorised giving of advice.

“If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema” means simply that in the Roman church there is the true doctrine.

“If any one saith (…) they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist (…) ; let him be anathema” means simply that they are not to be left to their own will; and they are to be compelled etc etc.

The OED gives coerce as “To constrain or restrain (a voluntary or moral agent) by the application of superior force, or by authority resting on force” and compel as “To urge irresistibly, to constrain, oblige, force”.

 

[ericc]

Well in context that is not the plain meaning of the words. This is one of 30 canons from the seventh session of Trent, and each of them is in this negative form, asserting a truth by denying its opposite.

“If any one saith (xxx) let him be anathema” means, in the language of Trent, “the opposite of (xxx) is the truth”. The 30 canons of the seventh session are not 30 different ways of discouraging the unauthorised giving of advice.

“If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema” means simply that in the Roman church there is the true doctrine.

“If any one saith (…) they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist (…) ; let him be anathema” means simply that they are not to be left to their own will; and they are to be compelled etc etc.

Unfortunately this is fallacious inference reasoning. There is no cause-effect. I think it is not right to accuse someone of coercive behavior based upon inferences.

The canon says that if those words were to be said by the offender, he is anathematized. If a company issues an order that no employee should speak to the press or competitor or (fill in the blanks) on threat of dismissal, that is that. It doesn’t say what is being said is true or not true, somewhat true or otherwise. It is simple regulation. Many times it is to avoid wrong or incomplete information being conveyed to others who may already be spiritually weakened and may be further weakened by wrong things being said, especially for those contemplating leaving the church. The Church sees the salvation of souls of utmost importance. And wrong information given by perhaps well-meaning folks may further jeopardize the salvation of that soul.

I am still waiting for your pointers in where I err. If it is easier for you, if you think what I quoted was wrong, perhaps the text in red, you can amend the text accordingly and let us take a look what your interpretation of the text means. Please do avoid conjectures. It doesn’t help. If words have more than 1 meaning, that is a valid defense.

The OED gives coerce as “To constrain or restrain (a voluntary or moral agent) by the application of superior force, or by authority resting on force” and compel as “To urge irresistibly, to constrain, oblige, force”.

Yes, the key word is “force”. Can you kindly point out where the canon says the Church to use force to compel behavior?

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately this is fallacious inference reasoning. There is no cause-effect.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Unfortunately this is fallacious inference reasoning. There is no cause-effect. I think it is not right to accuse someone of coercive behavior based upon inferences.

The canon says that if those words were to be said by the offender, he is anathematized. If a company issues an order that no employee should speak to the press or competitor or (fill in the blanks) on threat of dismissal, that is that. It doesn’t say what is being said is true or not true, somewhat true or otherwise. It is simple regulation. Many times it is to avoid wrong or incomplete information being conveyed to others who may already be spiritually weakened and may be further weakened by wrong things being said, especially for those contemplating leaving the church. The Church sees the salvation of souls of utmost importance. And wrong information given by perhaps well-meaning folks may further jeopardize the salvation of that soul.

I am still waiting for your pointers in where I err. If it is easier for you, if you think what I quoted was wrong, perhaps the text in red, you can amend the text accordingly and let us take a look what your interpretation of the text means. Please do avoid conjectures. It doesn’t help. If words have more than 1 meaning, that is a valid defense.

Yes, the key word is “force”. Can you kindly point out where the canon says the Church to use force to compel behavior?

If you think the canons of the seventh session do not state, are not intended to state, were not explicitly written to state, what the church thinks is true or not true, but were, in all 30 of them (because all 30 of them use the “if any one saith” formula) simply addressing the possibility of unauthorised statements, we will get nowhere by discussing further. Thank you for your replies. My very best wishes.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Unfortunately this is fallacious inference reasoning. There is no cause-effect. I think it is not right to accuse someone of coercive behavior based upon inferences.

The canon says that if those words were to be said by the offender, he is anathematized. If a company issues an order that no employee should speak to the press or competitor or (fill in the blanks) on threat of dismissal, that is that. It doesn’t say what is being said is true or not true, somewhat true or otherwise. It is simple regulation. Many times it is to avoid wrong or incomplete information being conveyed to others who may already be spiritually weakened and may be further weakened by wrong things being said, especially for those contemplating leaving the church. The Church sees the salvation of souls of utmost importance. And wrong information given by perhaps well-meaning folks may further jeopardize the salvation of that soul.

I am still waiting for your pointers in where I err. If it is easier for you, if you think what I quoted was wrong, perhaps the text in red, you can amend the text accordingly and let us take a look what your interpretation of the text means. Please do avoid conjectures. It doesn’t help. If words have more than 1 meaning, that is a valid defense.

Yes, the key word is “force”. Can you kindly point out where the canon says the Church to use force to compel behavior?

Ericc—Regarding the parts I bolded, in your first example, it’s an employee who, because of their status within a company, may not speak of certain things, regardless of their truth of falsity. But, the canons say “If anyone saith…” Why would no-one at all, not even the pope, be allowed to says these things unless the council considered the content itself to be problematic?

In your second example, you acknowledge wrong information being given, so there you see that the content of the information itself would be seen as incorrect, right? And that also it’s certain well-meaning but wrong folks who are being squelched, because what they are saying is considered harmful and misleading, as well as unauthorized.

If an authorized person says something, according to your interpretation (your interpretation being that the main goal of the canons is to stop unauthorized speakers, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of what they say), then by your line of thought it may or may not be okay, right? But, again, the canons say “If anyone saith…let him be anathema.”

 

[Telstar]

Well in context that is not the plain meaning of the words. This is one of 30 canons from the seventh session of Trent, and each of them is in this negative form, asserting a truth by denying its opposite.

“If any one saith (xxx) let him be anathema” means, in the language of Trent, “the opposite of (xxx) is the truth”. The 30 canons of the seventh session are not 30 different ways of discouraging the unauthorised giving of advice.

Exactly. Which means that the whole statement in between was considered by the Council, in it’s entirety. There is only one proposal being addressed, so the two sections of the proposal are not treated as two separate statements, where each one is to be looked at individually. They are tied together by the conjunction, “AND”. and: conjunction

1. (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:

“If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema” means simply that in the Roman church there is the true doctrine.

Yes. The truth of the doctrine concerning the sacrament of Baptism is the proposal that is being addressed.

“If any one saith (…) they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist (…) ; let him be anathema” means simply that they are not to be left to their own will; and they are to be compelled etc etc.

Here, you are doing exactly what I described above. You are separating the second part of the proposal from the first, as if it were a separate issue. What the Council is saying, is that anyone who proposes or believes the first part (the true subject that is declared to be in error) has no right to make any statement on what ‘punishments’ they think might be applicable, since they have no grounds to propose any punishment (or lack thereof) on anyone who “might refuse” to comply with what they propose in the first part.

The Church is the only one who has any right to question, or to place sanctions on Her members. But, the so-called ‘punishments’ are not ones that She is proposing in this canon, at all. Any conjecture about what it might mean in any other hypothetical situation, is completely outside the jurisdiction of this particular canon on Baptism.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Ericc—Regarding the parts I bolded, in your first example, it’s an employee who, because of their status within a company, may not speak of certain things, regardless of their truth of falsity. But, the canons say “If anyone saith…” Why would no-one at all, not even the pope, be allowed to says these things unless the council considered the content itself to be problematic?

In your second example, you acknowledge wrong information being given, so there you see that the content of the information itself would be seen as incorrect, right? And that also it’s certain well-meaning but wrong folks who are being squelched, because what they are saying is considered harmful and misleading, as well as unauthorized.

If an authorized person says something, according to your interpretation (your interpretation being that the main goal of the canons is to stop unauthorized speakers, regardless of the rightness it wrongness of what they say), then by your line of thought it may or may not be okay, right? But, again, the canons say “If anyone saith…let him be anathema.”

Yes, and the thing is that all the canons of the Council of Trent begin “if any one saith” or “if any one denieth” and their purpose is to define heresy (that, after all, is what they say they are doing — “let him be anathema”) and thereby defining what is orthodox. I don’t see how anyone who has read the canons can believe otherwise.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Exactly. Which means that the whole statement in between was considered by the Council, in it’s entirety. There is only one proposal being addressed, so the two sections of the proposal are not treated as two separate statements, where each one is to be looked at individually. They are tied together by the conjunction, “AND”. and: conjunction

1. (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:

Yes. The truth of the doctrine concerning the sacrament of Baptism is the proposal that is being addressed.

Here, you are doing exactly what I described above. You are separating the second part of the proposal from the first, as if it were a separate issue. What the Council is saying, is that anyone who proposes or believes the first part (the true subject that is declared to be in error) has no right to make any statement on what ‘punishments’ they think might be applicable, since they have no grounds to propose any punishment (or lack thereof) on anyone who “might refuse” to comply with what they propose in the first part.

The Church is the only one who has any right to question, or to place sanctions on Her members. But, the so-called ‘punishments’ are not ones that She is proposing in this canon, at all. Any conjecture about what it might mean in any other hypothetical situation, is completely outside the jurisdiction of this particular canon on Baptism.

Telstar—Do you acknowledge that Erasmus originally proposed this condemned idea, and that he proposed it in two parts from the start?

 

[AbideWithMe]

• I don’t see how anyone who has read the canons can believe otherwise.

Nor can I see that. Sometimes I entertain myself with the thought of calling this forum a Mutual Exasperation Society (the counterpart to a Mutual Admiration Society), in awareness that each side is probably dumbfounding each other equally. It keeps me from banging my head on the wall.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar—Do you acknowledge that Erasmus originally proposed this condemned idea, and that he proposed it in two parts from the start?

From what I recall of what was posted in an earlier link, yes. But, the Council is addressing both parts of what Erasmus taught as one issue, because both parts concern the same heretical subject matter. His proposal brings into question the validity of infant Baptism, by proposing that it should be somehow further validated when the Baptized reaches adulthood. That’s why it’s being addressed the way it is by the Council. The main subject of this canon is the validity of Infant Baptism, as it is practiced by the Church.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Exactly. Which means that the whole statement in between was considered by the Council, in it’s entirety. There is only one proposal being addressed, so the two sections of the proposal are not treated as two separate statements, where each one is to be looked at individually. They are tied together by the conjunction, “AND”. and: conjunction

1. (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:

Yes. The truth of the doctrine concerning the sacrament of Baptism is the proposal that is being addressed.

Here, you are doing exactly what I described above. You are separating the second part of the proposal from the first, as if it were a separate issue. What the Council is saying, is that anyone who proposes or believes the first part (the true subject that is declared to be in error) has no right to make any statement on what ‘punishments’ they think might be applicable, since they have no grounds to propose any punishment (or lack thereof) on anyone who “might refuse” to comply with what they propose in the first part.

The Church is the only one who has any right to question, or to place sanctions on Her members. But, the so-called ‘punishments’ are not ones that She is proposing in this canon, at all. Any conjecture about what it might mean in any other hypothetical situation, is completely outside the jurisdiction of this particular canon on Baptism.

Great, I love grammatical arguments. We have here a very complex series of clauses within a conditional clause. Tell me which is the first part of the proposal and which is the second, and I will answer. But I suspect you are falling into the same error. The council, taking the canons as a whole, does not make a point of who is allowed to say what; rather it is concerned with what is orthodox and what is heresy.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Nor can I see that. Sometimes I entertain myself with the thought of calling this forum a Mutual Exasperation Society (the counterpart to a Mutual Admiration Society), in awareness that each side is probably dumbfounding each other equally. It keeps me from banging my head on the wall.

It is exasperating! But if it were not, would we still be here?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Two quick points about the English experience before assertion is left to be read as fact:

1 At no point in English history has it been true that everyone discovered to be Catholic was killed.

2 It is not true to say that only the leaders among heretics were burned to death.

How about this:

In England, there were severe periods of persecution, to the point that all priests within England were there at risk to their own lives, and very often, if Catholics were discovered, they were hanged, drawn, and quartered, or put to death in some other manner.

And: it is largely outspoken individuals and leaders of Protestants that we have records of being put to death for treason and heresy.

Does this please you?

 

[Telstar]

Great, I love grammatical arguments. We have here a very complex series of clauses within a conditional clause. Tell me which is the first part of the proposal and which is the second, and I will answer. But I suspect you are falling into the same error. The council, taking the canons as a whole, does not make a point of who is allowed to say what; rather it is concerned with what is orthodox and what is heresy.

This is the canon as shown in The Catholic Encyclopedia, on the New Advent website. This translation is a little better than the “old English version” that most people here have been using, because it’s from a more modern time period. (I think it’s from the early 20th century.) All of the canons in this particular section concern erroneous beliefs regarding Baptism, that were causing doubts or conflicts about the Church’s teachings.

This is the main proposal in question, which begins with, “If anyone says:”
“Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism,”
This proposal is found to be heretical because it questions the efficacy of Infant Baptism, by suggesting that something else needs to be done to confirm that its still valid in adults. The Church is affirming that any Baptism performed by the Church, or by anyone using the proper formula, is valid forever. It cannot be “undone”, or “redone”. Nor does anyone have to justify their Baptism to anyone that might question them when they “grow up”. The Church gives special instruction to the parents, and to the sponsors, before Baptizing any infant, that they are responsible for teaching the Faith to the child as it gets older.
Sponsors

"When infants are solemnly baptized, persons assist at the ceremony to make profession of the faith in the child’s name. This practice comes from antiquity and is witnessed to by Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and others. Such persons are designated sponsores, offerentes, susceptores, fidejussores, and patrini. The English term is godfather and godmother, or in Anglo-Saxon, gossip.

These sponsors, in default of the child’s parents, are obliged to instruct it concerning faith and morals."This is what eliminates any need to ask someone to ‘ratify’ those vows. It’s up to the parents and godparents to do what they promised the Church to do, which is to instruct them in the Faith of the Church. When they grow up, it’s their own responsibility and choice as to whether they’ll follow them, or not. But, those vows are always valid in the eyes of God.

Then, we get to the second part:
"and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform."and it ends with, “Let him be anathema.”

IMHO, this second part of the canon is conditional on the first part, because if we cannot ‘question’ someone’s Baptismal vows, then the second half is already nullified. I now believe that it was included because it ties in with what Erasmus taught, therefore the Council wanted to kill two birds with one canon (pun intended) in case there was any doubt as to whether that part was included or not. But, since so many people here are insisting that there had to be another reason for it to be included, then I suppose I could offer something in the way of an explanation, even though I really don’t think it’s necessary.

First of all, the Church is a society of believers that has a hierarchical structure to govern it. As such, it has full authority to require its membership to follow a certain system of rules, just like any other public association or church has their own rules that they require to be followed by their members. The Church may have been adding the emphasis that she reserves the right to deal with any infraction of those rules as she sees fit, according to her own laws (subject to any civil laws that may apply). She does not give her authority to any individual member, outside of those that receive it through the sacrament of Holy Orders. But, even they have a higher authority over them. This canon might be clarifying her position on that point.

We also have to remember that the Church’s main responsibility (given to her by Jesus Christ) is to safeguard the salvation of the souls of her members. That’s why she has to take things like this so seriously.

 

[benhur]

Unfortunately this is fallacious inference reasoning. There is no cause-effect.

The Picky reasoning is not cause and effect. The anathema is cause effect. Offending, wrong words (“wrong things” as you say) cause the effect of anathemizing

I think it is not right to accuse someone of coercive behavior based upon inference

Picky is right to see the inferences of all the anthemas, Why do they anathemize free will and barring from sacraments ? Why didn’t the canon just anathemize questioning ones infant baptism, instead of also anathemizing free will and a conditional excommunication for one denying their baptismal faith ?

The canon says that if those words were to be said by the offender, he is anathematized

Yes, the cause and effect.

If a company issues an order that no employee should speak to the press or competitor or (fill in the blanks) on threat of dismissal, that is that.

No, the canons would be written to say," if anyone says you can speak to the press, and if you do and you release sensitive information, you should only be terminated. “, let him be anathema”. The releasing of info and *firing only *are both anathemized. Why is it fallacious to think that the spirit of the canon is to stop info leaking with penalties beyond firing (sued, loss of pension etc) ?

And wrong information given by perhaps well-meaning folks may further jeopardize the salvation of that soul.

Except that this canon not only wants to stop “wrong information” but wrong penalties. The canon does not like wrong cause *and *effects

Again, the only way around this is to say the canon meant it was wrong to deny the sacraments to one who denies the faith of their baptism (or as in your scenario that the info leaker should not be fired).

Blessings

 

[Picky_Picky]

How about this:

In England, there were severe periods of persecution, to the point that all priests within England were there at risk to their own lives, and very often, if Catholics were discovered, they were hanged, drawn, and quartered, or put to death in some other manner.

And: it is largely outspoken individuals and leaders of Protestants that we have records of being put to death for treason and heresy.

Does this please you?

It doesn’t please me, but it certainly is more accurate. But no, it doesn’t please me any more than the preceding and more extensive persecution of Protestants and other heretics pleases me.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Telstar, I agree the syntax is complicated, because of all the embedded clauses and the nesting of implied and actual conditionals. I don’t question your assessment of the first part (though I am not sure on what grounds you call it the main part, since a more natural reading is to find the ultimate result of all the conditionals as the main part, but never mind).

I agree the second part is conditional on the first, that it cannot come into play unless the first condition is fulfilled. In fact it is not only conditional, but is found later in time, so yes.

The rule with conditionals is that all parts of the conditional clause must be fulfilled for the consequential clause to apply. I am sure you are right, that the council would have considered the first part heretical in itself. I am sure that, the first part being fulfilled, the council considered the second part heretical. What the canon definitely says is that the two parts taken together are heretical. Do we agree?

 

[ericc]

Ericc—Regarding the parts I bolded, in your first example, it’s an employee who, because of their status within a company, may not speak of certain things, regardless of their truth of falsity. But, the canons say “If anyone saith…” Why would no-one at all, not even the pope, be allowed to says these things unless the council considered the content itself to be problematic?

I gave an example of regulation from the corporate world which I have some familiarity. I do not have the minutes of the Council of Trent to ascertain the exact reasons why such and such a canon was required and the reasoning and thought process that went into it. Without further information, it is presumptuous to conclude that a coercive force resulted from such a canon or that it is the result of certain types of problems. Therefore, in the absence of such information, it is not right to accuse someone of evil deeds. All we have is the presence of such a regulation. Period.

In your second example, you acknowledge wrong information being given, so there you see that the content of the information itself would be seen as incorrect, right? And that also it’s certain well-meaning but wrong folks who are being squelched, because what they are saying is considered harmful and misleading, as well as unauthorized.

If an authorized person says something, according to your interpretation (your interpretation being that the main goal of the canons is to stop unauthorized speakers, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of what they say), then by your line of thought it may or may not be okay, right? But, again, the canons say “If anyone saith…let him be anathema.”

I am giving examples of why certain behavior need to be regulated. I am not proclaiming guilt or innocence on any party. The Council has the authority to regulate the behavior of its members. The proclamation of these canons is the result of such determination that is necessary for regulation. The justification was not disclosed. Perhaps if there were minutes, that would have been much clearer as to all. But I don’t have it and those who have an agenda against the canon I presume also do not have it. So in the best case it is only conjecture.

I can give an example why those words in red can result in very bad advice being given. If you come to know one of the church members is thinking of not keeping their baptismal vows anymore, in fact, he/she is your son/daughter/relative/god child and he/she is thinking of joining a satanic group, would you say it is ok to say that they should be left to their own free will? Our baptism vow includes rejecting Satan. As we proclaim in the creed, all baptized are part of the communion of saints. If one of us is sick or weakened, do we just let them be or do we get together to help them? There are counselors who are properly trained. Not everyone can be capable in discerning the issues involved. Each case may be different and so on.

In the 16th century, the Church has spread itself worldwide. In many countries such as in ancient India, China and Asia, the Church has no real power to coerce or compel any forceful penalties. I urge those with a tendency to see violence where there is none to reconsider their inner motive. These canons apply world wide, not just where there is a reformation problem. I can see where some Protestants may feel this canon may impede their evangelization. But that is not a Catholic problem. People moving away from the baptismal vows is a Catholic problem. Even if a Catholic were to join a Protestant group, for most churches, I believe the baptism vow rejecting Satan still holds. However there are other vows which Protestants may not like…

These canons are meant for all, including popes, bishops etc. Not all our Popes are smart with high IQ and/or EQ, we even had some bad popes and churchmen. These canons makes sure all stay in line and prevent them making statements contrary to Church teachings, no matter what rank they hold. It helps to preempt “idiotic mistakes”, statements made by rogue churchmen, misspoken words caused by carelessness or not using the brain, mental illness and the like.

Lastly, I am perplexed why those with zero vested interest in the Catholic Church wants to find fault where their is none. Catholics do complain but not about these canons. We don’t have an issue, why would outsiders make it as if it is their own? What does it say about people like looking for fault in others? If they are interested in reforming the Catholic Church, be a member and contribute. There are things to change. Don’t just throw stones from outside. Their aim is pretty bad and uninformed. Professional fault finders should look at their own home first where they can make a difference in fixing faults. I mean stay to fix, not hit and run.

I have asked for clarification whether what I quoted is right or wrong. If I have gotten my stuff wrong, please help me identify where I went wrong. English is actually not my first language hence I am keen to know whether was it a language problem that is causing a difference in reading and understanding the text. Just when we going through the preliminaries, people start to say ciao. I guess they are not interested to deep dive.

 

[sacc]

It seems to me that what it is saying is that if, as an adult, a baptized person, choses to say he does not believe what his sponsors clamed for him at his infant baptism then he is to be left to his own will and not forced to live a Christian life. The penalty imposed by the church is denial of the sacraments because they are a means of God’s grace being given to believers. If he doesn’t believe why would he want to participate anyway? If and when he repents of his unbelief then he is to be welcomed back into full communion with the church. I don’t understand how you consider this coercion. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean.

 

[sacc]

OK. I just reread the canon. I guess what I said in my post above is EXACTLY what would make me anathema to the church! So I’m thinking I need to understand why this teaching needs to be spelled out for us. I think it means we are not to question someone’s faith but accept their infant baptism as valid and must encourage them to partake of the sacraments for their own spiritual growth. But I still don’t see coercion.