I think we’re all missing the real point of this canon. If we only read the parts that I emphasized (red/italics/bold), I think the real point of it is seen more easily. If I put it together on its own, it would look like this:
Why the Church created this canon is because there seemed to be an overabundance of people questioning the Church’s practice of Baptizing babies at that time (oh wait… they still do!). This canon eliminates any debate within the Church about whether or not those Baptisms are valid, and states that no one has a right to demand that any member of the Church should be required to retake those same vows, when they grow up. So, the Church is really protecting Her members from being questioned about their faith, and not trying to find a way to punish them if they dare to have any doubts. JMHO
As Emily Litella would say, “That’s different. Nevermind!”
I need to address a couple of issues here. First, as Contarini already stated, the portions that you’re crossing out or choosing not to highlight in red are not just filler words with no bearing in reality. Yes, perhaps it would be inadvisable (to the mind of a Reformation-era Catholic) to present ample opportunity for someone to choose to reject or leave Catholicism. But whether or not that opportunity is imprudently offered by another Catholic, the issue of temporal penalties for those who make such a choice is a very real issue of Church authority- and while this here does not go so far as to support capital punishment for heresy alone, it does affirm a certain Magisterial legitimacy in the use of temporal (not just spiritual) punishment and a certain targeted coercion of those baptized Catholic, specifically when they would Otherwise choose not to be Catholic anymore.
The other issue I want to address is the issue of the site I chose- it really did not occur to me that I would be able to put search terms into Google for Trent that would cause a low-key Sedevecantist-adjacent thing to pop first. I will admit that I’m mostly sorry because it was an unforced error that put a red herring in play, but on principle I do make an effort to cite sources that are not deliberately antagonistic to y’all.
At any rate, I want to make it up to you. I have another link to share with you, this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia at
newadvent.org. I trust this is more of a consistently approved source. Here is the link.
newadvent.org/cathen/11703a.htm
This also has to do with coercion. I’m going to task you with unraveling a different set of quotes. Please consult your angel friend once more and let’s see which things you highlight and which things you cross out.
"The Church claims to carry a message or rather a command from God and to be God’s only messenger. In point of fact it is only within recent years, when toleration is supposed to have become a dogma, that the other “champions of Revelation” have abandoned their similar claims. That they should abandon their right to command allegiance is a natural consequence of Protestantism; whereas it is the Church’s claim to be the accredited and infallible ambassador of God which justifies her apparent inconsistency. Such intolerance, however, is not the same as persecution, by which we understand the unlawful exercise of coercion. Every corporation lawfully constituted has the right to coerce its subjects within due limits. And though the Church exercises that right for the most part by spiritual sanctions, she has never relinquished the right to use other means. Before examining this latter right to physical coercion, there must be introduced the important distinction between pagans and Christians. Regularly, force has not been employed against pagan or Jew: “For what have I to do to judge them that are without?” (1 Corinthians 5:12); see JEWS AND JUDAISM: Judaism and Church Legislation.
Instances of compulsory conversions such as have occurred at different periods of the Church’s history must be ascribed to the misplaced zeal of autocratic individuals. But the Church does claim the right to coerce her own subjects. Here again, however, a distinction must be made. The non-Catholic Christians of our day are, strictly speaking, her subjects; but in her legislation she treats them as if they were not her subjects. The “Ne temere”, e.g., of Pius X (1907), recognizes the marriages of Protestants as valid, though not contracted according to Catholic conditions: and the laws of abstinence are not considered to be binding on Protestants. So, with regard to her right to use coercion, the Church only exercises her authority over those whom she considers personally and formally apostates. A modern Protestant is not in the same category with the Albigenses or Wyclifites. These were held to be personally responsible for their apostasy; and the Church enforced her authority over them: It is true that in many cases the heretics were rebels against the State also; but the Church’s claim to exercise coercion is not confined to such cases of social disorder. And what is more, her purpose was not only to protect the faith of the orthodox, but also to punish the apostates. Formal apostasy was then looked upon as treason against God — a much more heinous crime than treason against a civil ruler, which, until recent times, was punished with great severity. (See APOSTASY; HERESY.) It was a poisoning of the life of the soul in others (St. Thomas Aquinas, II-II, Q. xi, articles 3, 4.)
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Church claimed the right to use physical coercion against formal apostates. Not, of course, that she would exercise her authority in the same way today, even if there were a Catholic State in which other Christians were personally and formally apostates. She adapts her discipline to the times and circumstances in order that it may fulfil its salutary purpose."
)
