The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[aidanbradypop]

No deflection, just pointing out that the OP may be working with flawed information.

 

[dmar198]

And immediately following this, we come to the smoking gun.

From the Council of Trent, Session 7, the portion On Baptism:
“CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, 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, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.”

That is the smoking gun. That is religious coercion.

I don’t think it is religious coercion. But let’s look at your reasons for thinking so.

when cradle Catholics come of age, they shall not be left to their own free will.

I don’t think it’s the same thing to say “Person X should not be left to his own will” and to say “Person X should be forced to follow Catholicism.” I think you could refrain from forcing someone to follow Catholicism without leaving them to their own will. Do you think that’s possible? Because if it is, doesn’t that undercut the idea that this Canon requires religious coercion?

You might think their only penalty for abandoning the Church would be exclusions from the sacramental life of the Church, but no- they are to be compelled by other penalties as well

And they are. As an example, if they marry outside the Church, Catholics aren’t supposed to go their weddings. That is a penalty. We still follow that Canon by imposing other penalties on them other than just not giving them the Eucharist. But even though we still follow that Canon, we still aren’t forcing them to follow Catholicism. Doesn’t that undercut your interpretation?

by no means shall you just allow them to leave like that, you must get behind the idea that you should compel such a person with penalties other than a basic lack of membership.

It is my understanding that the Church’s compulsory power does not extend to forcing people to follow Catholicism. We can impose penalties on Catholics for not following Church teaching, and that is compulsory power, but it does not force anyone to do anything.

The current Code of Canon Law reflects this understanding: “The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.” (Canon 1311)

The Church has defined that its own coercive powers do not extend to forcing people to follow Catholicism. We still retain the right to use our coercive powers to penalize people for not following Catholicism, but our penalties must not force anyone to act against their conscience. Thus, unless I’ve missed something, we still follow that Canon from the Council of Trent, and yet we don’t force people to follow our faith. Does that make sense?

 

[GKC]

I haven’t had a chance to read both yet, so, at this point, I cannot answer that.

If you find a true difference, rather than a slightly updated voice, let me know. I like to think I know Trent.

Not a lot, but some.

GKC

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Not so much a smoking gun, but perhaps a smoking canon.

Trent’s formulae are difficult since they’re always negative statements. I have re-formatted the statement as a positive and underlined and capitalized my changes. Is this an acceptable modification? Does thinking about this in positive terms shed light on the issue?

“CANON XIV.- EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, NOT to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; BUT that, in case they answer that they will not, they are NOT to be left to their own will; and SHOULD be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, IN ADDITION TO AND INCLUDING that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent.”

The positive formulation makes it clear, to me at least, that “religious freedom” is not a value of the historical Roman Catholic Church. This isn’t necessarily a slander. If one believes that one has the truth faith, and that all other opinions are error that lead to eternal hell, why not violently coerce everyone to submit to at least the external practice of the faith? Indeed, this is precisely the justification for much religiously motivated shunning, economic punishment, torture, imprisonment, and execution.

 

[dmar198]

Not so much a smoking gun, but perhaps a smoking canon.

Trent’s formulae are difficult since they’re always negative statements. I have re-formatted the statement as a positive and underlined and capitalized my changes. Is this an acceptable modification? Does thinking about this in positive terms shed light on the issue?

“CANON XIV.- EVERYONE MUST BELIEVE, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, NOT to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; BUT that, in case they answer that they will not, they are NOT to be left to their own will; and SHOULD be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, IN ADDITION TO AND INCLUDING that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent.”

The positive formulation makes it clear, to me at least, that “religious freedom” is not a value of the historical Roman Catholic Church. This isn’t necessarily a slander. If one believes that one has the truth faith, and that all other opinions are error that lead to eternal hell, why not violently coerce everyone to submit to at least the external practice of the faith? Indeed, this is precisely the justification for much religiously motivated shunning, economic punishment, torture, imprisonment, and execution.

One reason why we shouldn’t violently coerce other people to follow the true faith is because doing so can cause other people to violate their conscience. That is always a sin both for the one forcing and the one forced.

Also, the passage from Trent doesn’t say anything about using violence. It affirms the Church’s coercive power over its own members, that is, all the baptized. The Church still affirms that it has this power, and it still uses it. But using violence is not named as one of the justified penalties that the Church has a right to inflict.

 

[joe371]

As some of you may have noticed, I have spent a bit of time, here and there, exploring matters pertaining to religious coercion and the Catholic Church. And now here is a thread in which I will explore the smoking gun. First, here is the smoking gun.

The smoking gun can be found at the Council of Trent. For those who don’t know, Trent is the Church council that was held in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Its purpose was to formally codify and promulgate Catholic doctrine with the full weight of Magisterial authority behind it in order to give a definitive and unchanging answer to all the issues that Protestantism raised. In this description, I am attempting to use language that implies both the iteration of teachings in opposition to Protestant doctrines as well as the implementation of Catholic reforms, which were not necessarily counter to the Reformation.

Getting back to the smoking gun, though. From the Council of Trent, Session 7, On the Sacraments. Here’s one link that lets you see the whole thing. thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
It begins with descriptions of the sacraments in general; our smoking gun is found in the portion that deals specifically with baptism. To begin with a little bit of context, let’s look at the Canon just previous to the smoking gun.

From the portion On Baptism: “CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.”

Ok, so that’s infant baptism. Despite not having “actual faith” or “years of discretion,” an infant baptism is all the things that any other baptism is. And immediately following this, we come to the smoking gun.

From the Council of Trent, Session 7, the portion On Baptism:
“CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, 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, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.”

That is the smoking gun. That is religious coercion. As if it’s not enough that infants are ushered into Catholic membership through the promise of their sponsors (and evidently that really was not enough for the Trent Magisterium), when cradle Catholics come of age, they shall not be left to their own free will. You might think their only penalty for abandoning the Church would be exclusions from the sacramental life of the Church, but no- they are to be compelled by other penalties as well, by no means shall you just allow them to leave like that, you must get behind the idea that you should compel such a person with penalties other than a basic lack of membership. And if you don’t support that you are anathema.

This most certainly is Church teaching. It is a big, huge, major council. This is Trent. And at Trent, that particular Magisterium saw fit to throw their authority behind the idea that cradle Catholics don’t just get the choice to leave- compel them with penalties, do not let them freely choose to go, coerce them to stay in spite of what they would prefer to do.

This is the smoking gun. It is Trent. It is an anathema stated with Magisterial authority. As such, it is permanent. It cannot be unsaid, nor was it ever supposed to be.

So I have a few questions about this. Starting with: Why did that particular Magisterium see fit to guarantee grounds for a certain type of religious coercion? What was it so important to them? And continuing with: What does it say about the Catholic Church in the modern day, considering how no one knows about his particular anathema and everyone basically violates it whenever someone close to them chooses to leave the Catholic Church?

A personal question for all of you, if I may. I assume you know some cradle Catholics who wound up leaving the Church at least for a time, yes? Did you ever, ever, ever in your life considering compelling them to stay through the use of some penalty or punishment? Did it ever occur to you? And now that you know about this particular anathema- would you even remotely consider doing such a thing? I don’t know exactly what kind of penalty you might see fit to impose, but the upshot is that a cradle Catholic wants to leave the Church and you arrange something that forces them not to, despite the fact that they would like to.

This is the smoking gun. Let’s have an in depth discussion, shall we?

Am I understanding the wording: So basically, if a baptised child, once he/she grows up, chooses to reject the Catholic faith, and someone else (father, mother etc.) insist that they (children grown up) are to be left to their own will, as well as not being compelled to a Christian life by any other penalty (with the exception of preventing the non-Catholic from receiving the Sacraments) - said others should be anathematized?

 

[joe371]

Getting back to the smoking gun, though. From the Council of Trent, Session 7, On the Sacraments. Here’s one link that lets you see the whole thing. thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
It begins with descriptions of the sacraments in general; our smoking gun is found in the portion that deals specifically with baptism. To begin with a little bit of context, let’s look at the Canon just previous to the smoking gun.

From the portion On Baptism: “CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.”

Ok, so that’s infant baptism. Despite not having “actual faith” or “years of discretion,” an infant baptism is all the things that any other baptism is. And immediately following this, we come to the smoking gun.

From the Council of Trent, Session 7, the portion On Baptism:
“CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, 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, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.”

That is the smoking gun. That is religious coercion. As if it’s not enough that infants are ushered into Catholic membership through the promise of their sponsors (and evidently that really was not enough for the Trent Magisterium), when cradle Catholics come of age, they shall not be left to their own free will. You might think their only penalty for abandoning the Church would be exclusions from the sacramental life of the Church, but no- they are to be compelled by other penalties as well, by no means shall you just allow them to leave like that, you must get behind the idea that you should compel such a person with penalties other than a basic lack of membership. And if you don’t support that you are anathema.

This most certainly is Church teaching. It is a big, huge, major council. This is Trent. And at Trent, that particular Magisterium saw fit to throw their authority behind the idea that cradle Catholics don’t just get the choice to leave- compel them with penalties, do not let them freely choose to go, coerce them to stay in spite of what they would prefer to do.

This is the smoking gun. It is Trent. It is an anathema stated with Magisterial authority. As such, it is permanent. It cannot be unsaid, nor was it ever supposed to be.

So I have a few questions about this. Starting with: Why did that particular Magisterium see fit to guarantee grounds for a certain type of religious coercion? What was it so important to them? And continuing with: What does it say about the Catholic Church in the modern day, considering how no one knows about his particular anathema and everyone basically violates it whenever someone close to them chooses to leave the Catholic Church?

A personal question for all of you, if I may. I assume you know some cradle Catholics who wound up leaving the Church at least for a time, yes? Did you ever, ever, ever in your life considering compelling them to stay through the use of some penalty or punishment? Did it ever occur to you? And now that you know about this particular anathema- would you even remotely consider doing such a thing? I don’t know exactly what kind of penalty you might see fit to impose, but the upshot is that a cradle Catholic wants to leave the Church and you arrange something that forces them not to, despite the fact that they would like to.

This is the smoking gun. Let’s have an in depth discussion, shall we?

Your question badnewsbarrett: “So I have a few questions about this. Starting with: Why did that particular Magisterium see fit to guarantee grounds for a certain type of religious coercion?”

Here is another smoking gun, as per your logic, right from scripture alone:

“I’m now telling you again what we’ve told you in the past: If anyone tells you good news that is different from the Good News you received, that person should be condemned to hell.” Galatians

Why did saint Paul see fit to guarantee grounds for a certain type of religious coercion? Paul is a lot more coercive: So, as per Paul, for example - if a baptised child grows up and speaks of Protestant good news that is different from the Catholic good news a Catholic received, then according to saint Paul, that person should be condemned to hell?

Of course Paul’s ultimate goal is to keep the person in the fold where doctrinal truth can be found, in order to avoid eternal hell.

 

[Easter_Joey]

Literally, all this canon is saying is that by rejecting your baptismal promises, you damage your relationship to the Church in ways that extend beyond just the sacraments. An example: you shouldn’t be teaching catechism to seven year olds if the canon applies to you. That would be a penalty that extends beyond the sacraments. The way this canon gets applied should probably vary based on local circumstances, and obviously not in a way that drives people away from the Church bcuz the Church is primarily a source of mercy for the world.

There’s got to be a good balance between mercy and justice.

 

[Reuben_J]

Am I understanding the wording: So basically, if a baptised child, once he/she grows up, chooses to reject the Catholic faith, and someone else (father, mother etc.) insist that they (children grown up) are to be left to their own will, as well as not being compelled to a Christian life by any other penalty (with the exception of preventing the non-Catholic from receiving the Sacraments) - said others should be anathematized?

I have short attention span nowadays and long-winded complicated legal documents most often escape me. But if you say it as what it is then I agree with you.

The responsibility of the sponsor or ‘Godfather’ to the baptized child is to encourage, help, support, walk and when necessary, teach, that child in the faith to be a good practicing Catholic Christians as he/she grows up until he/she has children of their own, and continue the cycle and tradition that was imparted to her/him.

Because of this responsibility, the sponsor must continue but not force, to bring the person baptized back to the correct path. He should never abdicate that responsibility.

As for the parents, they have made that commitment to bring up their children in the faith as early as their matrimonial vows to the Church. Too often Catholic parents do not know what that means today and their children are often left on their own, apostatized or converted to another religion, with them not so much of trying to pastor their children.

The Church spells this clearly, while an adult is given the free will to follow any faith that they choose, both parents and the sponsors should be committed to their responsibility that was tasked to them which they had understood and accepted.

I think that is the spirit of Trent and what the Church still believes and does today.

To the OP, no coercion by the Church in this matter.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Mr_Clean]

Ok, so a person is baptised and sometime later in their life they reject their baptismal vows and the Church says let them go their own way and no longer allow them to partake in the sacraments until they repent. How is this coercion? You reject what the Church teaches, so we won’t hold a gun to your head but if you change your mind the door is always open. Sounds reasonable to me. What should they do? Let them damn themselves further by partaking while in mortal sin?

 

[joe371]

I have short attention span nowadays and long-winded complicated legal documents most often escape me. But if you say it as what it is then I agree with you.

The responsibility of the sponsor or ‘Godfather’ to the baptized child is to encourage, help, support, walk and when necessary, teach, that child in the faith to be a good practicing Catholic Christians as he/she grows up until he/she has children of their own, and continue the cycle and tradition that was imparted to her/him.

Because of this responsibility, the sponsor must continue but not force, to bring the person baptized back to the correct path. He should never abdicate that responsibility.

As for the parents, they have made that commitment to bring up their children in the faith as early as their matrimonial vows to the Church. Too often Catholic parents do not know what that means today and their children are often left on their own, apostatized or converted to another religion, with them not so much of trying to pastor their children.

The Church spells this clearly, while an adult is given the free will to follow any faith that they choose, both parents and the sponsors should be committed to their responsibility that was tasked to them which they had understood and accepted.

I think that is the spirit of Trent and what the Church still believes and does today.

To the OP, no coercion by the Church in this matter.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Contarini]

The text says: saying “people who leave the Church should be left alone” is wrong. This does not mean that penaltes are *required *to be imposed. The Church understands that many sins must be put up with as trying to deal with them all would cause huge problems.

What the Church is saying is that it is wrong to say that people who apostatize ought never to face any penalites aside from exclusion from the sacraments, that it would be wrong to impose any penalties.

I think that’s a fair interpretation. But it is not what most of us think and hope the Catholic Church teaches today on religious liberty as a basic part of human beings’ God-given dignity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Interesting that no one has actually addressed the issue. Instead the site is being debated. Kind of seems like a deflection to me IMO.

Here’s a version from EWTN, which presumably lacks theological cooties.

 

[joe371]

I think that’s a fair interpretation. But it is not what most of us think and hope the Catholic Church teaches today on religious liberty as a basic part of human beings’ God-given dignity.

Edwin

Hey Edwin. What are your thoughts on this passage from saint Paul?

Here is another smoking gun, as per the OPs logic, right from scripture alone:

“I’m now telling you again what we’ve told you in the past: If anyone tells you good news that is different from the Good News you received, (in other words someone not belonging to the church that Paul belonged to) that person should be condemned to hell.” Galatians

As the OP said about Trent- Why did saint Paul see fit to guarantee grounds for a certain type of religious coercion? Paul seems a lot more coercive: So, as per Paul, for example - if a baptised child grows up, and eventually speaks of Protestant good news (different church with different beliefs) that is different from the Catholic good news a Catholic received, then according to saint Paul, that person should be condemned to hell?

Of course Paul’s ultimate goal is to keep the person in the fold where doctrinal truth can be found, in order to avoid eternal hell.

 

[joe371]

Here’s a version from EWTN, which presumably lacks theological cooties.

No need. You made a good point vis-a-vis the source being the crux of the matter.

 

[GKC]

Here’s a version from EWTN, which presumably lacks theological cooties.

Same as Schroeder, no significant difference from the site in question.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Hey Edwin. What are your thoughts on this passage from saint Paul?

Here is another smoking gun, as per the OPs logic, right from scripture alone:

“I’m now telling you again what we’ve told you in the past: If anyone tells you good news that is different from the Good News you received, (in other words someone not belonging to the church that Paul belonged to) that person should be condemned to hell.” Galatians

As the OP said about Trent- Why did saint Paul see fit to guarantee grounds for a certain type of religious coercion? Paul seems a lot more coercive: So, as per Paul, for example - if a baptised child grows up and eventually and speaks of Protestant good news that is different from the Catholic good news a Catholic received, then according to saint Paul, that person should be condemned to hell?

Of course Paul’s ultimate goal is to keep the person in the fold where doctrinal truth can be found, in order to avoid eternal hell.

I don’t think it’s the same at all. Actually I think Paul’s language was the same as Trent’s on those who deny coercion: “let him be anathema.”

In other words, Paul is calling for excommunication. But Trent goes beyond that, ironically calling for the excommunication of those who (like Paul?) stop at excommunicating heretics and don’t also use state power to coerce them.

Edwin

 

[joe371]

I don’t think it’s the same at all. Actually I think Paul’s language was the same as Trent’s on those who deny coercion: “let him be anathema.”

In other words, Paul is calling for excommunication. But Trent goes beyond that, ironically calling for the excommunication of those who (like Paul?) stop at excommunicating heretics and don’t also use state power to coerce them.

Edwin

What do you mean - “Trent goes beyond that”? Paul’s coercion is much worse because he is consigning those people to eternal hell-fire - right?

 

[Contarini]

What do you mean - “Trent goes beyond that”? Paul’s coercion is much worse because he is consigning those people to eternal hell-fire - right?

No, because Paul isn’t physically doing anything to them.

Unless you are arguing that since he’s an apostle his curse automatically damns them somehow. Which I don’t believe.

I mean, you can curse me to hell all day long and that won’t coerce me to do anything. Granted, you’re not Paul

Edwin

 

[joe371]

I don’t think it’s the same at all. Actually I think Paul’s language was the same as Trent’s on those who deny coercion: “let him be anathema.”

In other words, Paul is calling for excommunication. But Trent goes beyond that, ironically calling for the excommunication of those who (like Paul?) stop at excommunicating heretics and don’t also use state power to coerce them.

Edwin

Accursed rather than hell? OK. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

We agree that these are words of coercion, spoken by Paul?