The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Reuben_J]

Since physical punishment is not stated as the penalty, it is quite reasonable, certainly not absurd, to reason that the penalty is something spiritual, meaning sin. They would sin if they leave according to their will and do not live the Christian life. That at least is true. The Church always maintains that the fullness of life is to be found in the Church, living it.

Excommunication does not necessarily equal sin. Not receiving the sacraments does not necessarily damn a person. If an excommunicated person still leads a Christian life, he may be well still can be saved.

So beside being excommunicated, a heretic also sins, if he does not live a Christian life.

Perhaps we should go for Catholicism for dummies:

*Being excommunicated from the Catholic Church is widely misunderstood: It doesn’t mean that you’re banned from church and stripped of your Catholicism. Rather, excommunication is a strong, remedial penalty meted out with the hope that it’ll wake you up and move you to true repentance — and back into full communion with the faithful. In short, it’s reversible.

Excommunication is the most severe form of ecclesiastical penalty and is used only as an absolute last resort. Excommunicants remain Catholic because of baptism and still obligated to attend Mass, but they are deprived of all sacraments (except for the Sacrament of Penance). For example, you can go to Mass but not receive the Holy Eucharist. The excommunicated are forbidden from employment or holding any position of authority in a diocese or parish. They are also deprived of a Catholic burial.
*

 

[eddie_too]

from the language cited, I do not see the Church imposing additional penalties. I see the Church refusing to state that other penalties can not be imposed. that may be a subtle distinction, but I see it as quite reasonable since secular authorities may have had their own reasons for imposing penalties, as well as ordinaries of various dioceses might have reasons to impose penalties.

it would have been more coercive for the Church to say that no one may impose any additional penalties on those who deny their faith.

the Church does not generally try to restrict civil authorities from exercising their responsibilities as they see fit. of course, I say this pre-emptively, that does not apply to the making of just laws.

 

[jlhargus]

And is to be compelled by penalties other than exclusion from the sacraments.

The standard penalty in use at the time was burning at the stake, though this was only if the person obstinately refused to repent, and sometimes even then was commuted to life imprisonment or banishment or something of that sort. (Or they would strangle the person first and then burn the body, which I suppose deserves some credit)

I can’t see how not accepting the faith in the first place could be heresy.

 

[Telstar]

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 issue is that none of that is relevant to the subject of this canon. The canon in question is not addressing the issue of Catholics that want to leave the Church voluntarily. It’s addressing the validity of Baptism, specifically Infant Baptism. That’s why it is listed under the heading of Baptism. It’s intended to denounce the position taken by some Catholics at that time (because of questions/doubts raised by the “Reformers”), who proposed that the Church should require people to retake their Baptismal vows (ratify what their sponsors promised for them) when they become adults. In effect, it means that they think adults should be re-Baptized. This would effectively contradict the Church’s teaching on Baptism, and would be like Her saying that Infant Baptism is not really valid, and has no permanent effect on the soul. That would be ludicrous. That’s the whole issue.

Since Baptism cannot be nullified or reversed when done properly (because it leaves an indelible mark on the soul), in this canon, the Church is refusing to agree to take any such action. It clearly says that anyone that believes the Church should re-Baptize anyone, or impose penalties on anyone that might refuse to be re-Baptized, should be excommunicated for believing that. That’s a pretty strong statement against those who would question the validity of Infant Baptism. So, any mention of the penalties that those persons were proposing against someone that refused to be re-Baptized, are completely irrelevant. If you notice, the second statement concerning punishments is conditional on someone refusing to be re-Baptized (ratify what their sponsors promised for them). But, the Church is saying that no one should ever be required to be re-Baptized because it’s completely unnecessary. One Baptism is enough. That’s why the Church doesn’t re-Baptize anyone coming into the Church who has already been Baptized, as long as the approved formula of administering Baptism has been followed.

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.

No problem. I’ve run into the same thing when I’ve been looking for Catholic info online. It makes me more cautious about verifying sources before I read, but every now & then they still catch me. >.<

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…

As I said, all of this is completely irrelevant to this particular canon, because it is not imposing any penalties. In fact, it’s denying that any penalties should be imposed. It’s the people that would want adults to be re-Baptized that were suggesting that the Church should impose penalties on them, not the Church.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings about what this particular canon means. The subject of anyone who wants to leave the Catholic Church, is completely unrelated to it. So, it might be best to address that subject in a different thread.

 

[Contarini]

Huh? Who were they

The Fathers of Trent.

and what has this canon (XIV on Baptism) got to do with it?

It explicitly says that baptized who apostasize/fall into heresy should not be left to their own devices, and by condemning those who say that penalties beyond excommunion shouldn’t be imposed, it strongly implies that they should.

We are discussing about this particular canon (XIV on Baptism) not what they did outside this canon.

Some of us are interested in discussing these things historically and not legalistically.

If you want to read the text legalistically, in abstraction from its historical context, and come up with a historically implausible interpretation that allows you to be a Catholic in good conscience, I’m not going to get in your way.

But historically, it is highly relevant to consider what was going on at the time and what sort of penalties they would have been thinking of when they affirmed the legitimacy (maybe the necessity) of such penalties.

Burning on stakes is not mandated, rightly, as you said. Supporting the act of people burning heretics on stakes does not make this canon endorses it.

No, but it endorses civil penalties.

Since physical punishment is not stated as the penalty, it is quite reasonable, certainly not absurd, to reason that the penalty is something spiritual, meaning sin.

Catholic authorities, civil or ecclesiastical, rightly impose sin on people? This makes no sense.

The canon isn’t saying “bad things will happen.” It’s saying, “it is wrong to say that they should simply be excluded from the sacraments and that no further penalties should be imposed,” which means at the very least, “further penalties may be imposed” and probably “they should be.” I think you may still be confused by the negative framework of the language.

Imposing penalties doesn’t mean “people sin.” It means “the government punishes people to prevent them from sinning.”

So yes, your interpretation is absurd.

They would sin if they leave according to their will and do not live the Christian life. That at least is true. The Church always maintains that the fullness of life is to be found in the Church, living it.

Yes, but that’s not a penalty imposed by the Church or by a Catholic government, and upheld by the Church as the right thing to do, is it?

It’s beyond doubt that the text is talking about some kind of civil penalties. I have granted several times that it’s not necessarily talking about the death penalty. But there is no reason to think that the Fathers of Trent disapproved of the death penalty for heresy, and if they had wished to exclude the death penalty (given that it was the standard punishment for impenitent heresy), they would almost certainly have said so.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The issue is that none of that is relevant to the subject of this canon. The canon in question is not addressing the issue of Catholics that want to leave the Church voluntarily.

Yes, it absolutely is.

It’s addressing the validity of Baptism, specifically Infant Baptism. That’s why it is listed under the heading of Baptism. It’s intended to denounce the position taken by some Catholics at that time (because of questions/doubts raised by the “Reformers”), who proposed that the Church should require people to retake their Baptismal vows (ratify what their sponsors promised for them) when they become adults. In effect, it means that they think adults should be re-Baptized.

Not true. Ratifying your baptismal vows isn’t the same thing as being rebaptized. If they were talking about rebaptism in this particular canon, they would have said so.

Canon 13 (the previous canon) talks about rebaptism. This isn’t a repetition of the same thing. It’s a new and separate (though related) issue.

It clearly says that anyone that believes the Church should re-Baptize anyone, or impose penalties on anyone that might refuse to be re-Baptized, should be excommunicated for believing that.

That makes no sense at all. That is not what the canon is talking about.

I think that like Reuben, you’re confused by the syntax. Everything between “if anything says” and “let him be anathema” is being condemned, not affirmed.

The condemnation applies not to those who want to impose penalties, but to those who say penalties shouldn’t be imposed. In other words, penalties are being affirmed (though I agree that technically the language leaves open the possibility that penalties are legitimate but not required).

As I said, all of this is completely irrelevant to this particular canon, because it is not imposing any penalties. In fact, it’s denying that any penalties should be imposed.

No, that’s the opposite of what it says. Again, everything between the first phrase and the last is being rejected.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings about what this particular canon means. The subject of anyone who wants to leave the Catholic Church, is completely unrelated to it. So, it might be best to address that subject in a different thread.

Alas, this canon is very relevant indeed.

Edwin

 

[dmar198]

It’s beyond doubt that the text is talking about some kind of civil penalties.

In post #75 of this thread I gave several reasons for doubting that it is talking about civil penalties. I think it is talking about ecclesiastical penalties other than excommunication. Did you see that post?

 

[Mystophilus]

By the way being under a curse seems pretty bad to me i.e. Paul’s words would have scared me…

An anathema is essentially a request for God to smite someone, which does make it pretty serious.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The issue is that none of that is relevant to the subject of this canon. The canon in question is not addressing the issue of Catholics that want to leave the Church voluntarily. It’s addressing the validity of Baptism, specifically Infant Baptism. That’s why it is listed under the heading of Baptism. It’s intended to denounce the position taken by some Catholics at that time (because of questions/doubts raised by the “Reformers”), who proposed that the Church should require people to retake their Baptismal vows (ratify what their sponsors promised for them) when they become adults. In effect, it means that they think adults should be re-Baptized. This would effectively contradict the Church’s teaching on Baptism, and would be like Her saying that Infant Baptism is not really valid, and has no permanent effect on the soul. That would be ludicrous. That’s the whole issue.

Since Baptism cannot be nullified or reversed when done properly (because it leaves an indelible mark on the soul), in this canon, the Church is refusing to agree to take any such action. It clearly says that anyone that believes the Church should re-Baptize anyone, or impose penalties on anyone that might refuse to be re-Baptized, should be excommunicated for believing that. That’s a pretty strong statement against those who would question the validity of Infant Baptism. So, any mention of the penalties that those persons were proposing against someone that refused to be re-Baptized, are completely irrelevant. If you notice, the second statement concerning punishments is conditional on someone refusing to be re-Baptized (ratify what their sponsors promised for them). But, the Church is saying that no one should ever be required to be re-Baptized because it’s completely unnecessary. One Baptism is enough. That’s why the Church doesn’t re-Baptize anyone coming into the Church who has already been Baptized, as long as the approved formula of administering Baptism has been followed.

No problem. I’ve run into the same thing when I’ve been looking for Catholic info online. It makes me more cautious about verifying sources before I read, but every now & then they still catch me. >.<

As I said, all of this is completely irrelevant to this particular canon, because it is not imposing any penalties. In fact, it’s denying that any penalties should be imposed. It’s the people that would want adults to be re-Baptized that were suggesting that the Church should impose penalties on them, not the Church.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings about what this particular canon means. The subject of anyone who wants to leave the Catholic Church, is completely unrelated to it. So, it might be best to address that subject in a different thread.

Telstar—Between “If anyone saith…” and “let him be anathema”, the instances of “they”, “them”, “their” refer to “those”—those baptized as infants, spoken of in the previous canon.

“Let him be anathema” refers to a particular, singular person: “If anyone saith…” I know we today often use “they” kind of sloppily to avoid saying “him or her”, but it seems clear to me the pronouns are being used more carefully here.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Fathers of Trent.

You are treading dangerous ground. You should not say things that are not there.

It explicitly says that baptized who apostasize/fall into heresy should not be left to their own devices, and by condemning those who say that penalties beyond excommunion shouldn’t be imposed, it strongly implies that they should.

At best this is merely your conjecture. You are already prejudiced because of the existence of civil penalties and wrongly trying to fit that into the said canon. That is unfair and dishonest scholarly. Even as a layman, not a canon lawyer, it is obvious to me that no physical penalty is being spoken of in this canon. You really have to read that again, point it out to me where you think it suggests it (physical or civil penalty).

You are confusing two things here:

Excommunication is for heretics and that is already a very severe penalty by the Church.

As for a person who does not ratify his baptismal promise, he is to still live the Christian life, the obvious one is to attend mass, otherwise the penalty is sin. That’s all what is contained in the said canon. One should not try to put things that are not there.

Some of us are interested in discussing these things historically and not legalistically.

Sure. Discuss history and abuses of the people of the Church. However, I cannot allow you to willfully putting things into a canon which are not there, well, because it is not what it says and means.

The OP specifically cited this canon (XIV of baptism) and it should be treated truthfully and fairly for the sake of those who really want to know and not through prejudiced mind of those who have axes to grind with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, one has to be legalistic and right when discussing a legal document. If you are including things that are not there, then you are no difference than those who did the same and abusing the power and authority that was tasked to them. And that was wrong and dishonest; and history judged them so.

If you want to read the text legalistically, in abstraction from its historical context, and come up with a historically implausible interpretation that allows you to be a Catholic in good conscience, I’m not going to get in your way.

No, but because that is the way to go about it. Do not mix history and legal document and reading it with a prejudice mind. It has to be treated, read and understood fairly and correctly.

Just imagine if you are to be burned at stake just because you do not ratify your baptismal vows, and your accusers say, “Canon XIV of the Baptism says so”. Would you not defend yourself and ask, “Where does it say so?” Would you allowed yourself to be killed for a law that is not there?

But historically, it is highly relevant to consider what was going on at the time and what sort of penalties they would have been thinking of when they affirmed the legitimacy (maybe the necessity) of such penalties.

Yes. It may be so. I would not dispute that such atrocities happened. But if people are burned on stakes because of this canon then it was wrong and an erroneous interpretation of the said canon. You surely are intelligent enough to know this.

… to be continued.

 

[Reuben_J]

Contiunation …

No, but it endorses civil penalties.

Again what is it? Not the said canon XIV of baptism. It does not endorse civil penalties.
There is none. I challenge you to point it out if it is there.

I put it down here again for your perusal:

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.

As I said, there are two things here:

(1) One who says X will be anathema, and
(2) X is what is being said, this, “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; “

In some of my earlier posts, I did not address point (1), it was deliberate but someone (poster St Francis) called me out on that which I acknowledged for the sake of Christian charity.

Point (1) is rather straight forward. You give wrong teaching that is not approved by the Church, you are an anathema. But point (2) is the content of that teaching that if one teaches it, one will be an anathema. That is more relevant to me since the OP mentioned about coercion. I don’t know. As a Catholic, I think I should clarify on that.

Point (2) does not mention coercion. Even though a person should not be allowed to be left to their own will ( I erred for saying that they should be allowed to be left to their own will), the penalty mentioned for doing so is nevertheless NOT stated. Since this is about baptism, an ecclesiastical document, it should follow that the penalty should be ecclesiastical penalty, that is, pertaining to spiritual. In short, sin.

Catholic authorities, civil or ecclesiastical, rightly impose sin on people? This makes no sense.

It makes sense alright.

The Catholic Church, not Catholic authorities, whatever that means. The Catholic Church can declare what is sin. I understand you are not Catholic. For this I suggest Catholicism for dummies, it is not an insult to you, but you can find some simple and basic information about Catholicism there.

The Church has imposed commandments ( the Six Commandments of the Church, for example). Transgressing these Commandments constitute sin for the faithful.

The canon isn’t saying “bad things will happen.” It’s saying, “it is wrong to say that they should simply be excluded from the sacraments and that no further penalties should be imposed,” which means at the very least, “further penalties may be imposed” and probably “they should be.” I think you may still be confused by the negative framework of the language.

I am not confused but your interpretation is much questionable. I would admit if I did and I have done that many times.

Further penalty. What penalty? You were suggesting civil penalty, burning at stake. I didn’t. Simply for the fact that this is an ecclesiastical document and the only penalty that it can ascribe to is ecclesiastical.

The people who were in the Church might have done many bad things in the past but the Church is not stupid. They committed the abuses despite the Church’s teaching.

Imposing penalties doesn’t mean “people sin.” It means “the government punishes people to prevent them from sinning.”

Yes, sir, it can mean sin.

If it is for the government to punish people, then it is civil penalties, by civil laws; not ecclesiastical penalty, not by the canon.

There were papal bulls to order people to be burned at stake; these were not canon.

So yes, your interpretation is absurd.

Yours is dishonest. I am beginning to feel that you are trying to put aspersion into the Church. It is sad. It is not that I am defending the Church blindly but it is still wrong to impute thing to a document which is not there. I am sorry to say that but if it should come to this, you are erring and if you say you don’t, then you are simply dishonest in this discussion.

Reuben

 

[PRmerger]

What is the specific punishment spelled out by Trent i.e. where someone has ordered that something be physically done, as a punishment? My only point: If it upsets you that the CC uses coercive language then it should equally upset you that Paul does too - that’s all.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PRmerger]

“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.”

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:

“If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, let him be anathema.”
I could be very wrong, but this canon actually seems to be saying that the faithful should not be asked if they would ratify those promises, at all. It’s no one’s place to question anyone’s faith. That is something that should be left between them and God. No one should interfere in any way, or question them, period. I think it falls under, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

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!”

Yes! This!

 

[Reuben_J]

Imposing penalties doesn’t mean “people sin.” It means “the government punishes people to prevent them from sinning.”

Perhaps this was not worded clearly enough before.

Why can’t sin be a deterrent from sinning? The Church has promulgated commandments which if transgressed, the penalty is sin. The Commandments, as they are, prevent people from sinning.

So if the Church imposes penalty, which is sin by doing something that she does not allow, then why not?

 

[Mystophilus]

I gave several reasons for doubting that it is talking about civil penalties. I think it is talking about ecclesiastical penalties other than excommunication.

“As the jurisdiction of the hierarchy and the institution of the mediaeval papacy were developed, this legislation came to include civil obligations and all civil penalties except the death penalty.” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, citing Döllinger-Friedrich, Das Papstthum, p. 403)

The line between civil and ecclesiastical penalties was unclear at the time, and so the scope of Trent’s reference to alia interim pœna is not limited by the canon itself, and would have been rather variably so under different governments.

 

[Mystophilus]

And we are in no doubt, historically, as to what the standard punishment for an impenitent heretic was in the West between about 1200 and 1700, roughly speaking.

True, but it does refer explicitly to someone abandoning a “Christian life”, in a council which does elsewhere demonstrate concern for the wellbeing of Protestants. While this does not stop the canon in question for being religious coercion, it is coercion against recanting Christianity, not against switching denominations.

 

[dmar198]

“As the jurisdiction of the hierarchy and the institution of the mediaeval papacy were developed, this legislation came to include civil obligations and all civil penalties except the death penalty.” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, citing Döllinger-Friedrich, Das Papstthum, p. 403)

I think my interpretation of Schaff may be different from yours. I’m not sure how you interpret this sentence, but as I read it, I do not think he is saying that all civil penalties were ecclesiastical penalties, but that ecclesiastical penalties included all the penalties, except death, that were used by the civil states of the time.

Perhaps that sounds like the same thing to you. If it does, let me try to clarify: when I wrote the phrase “I do not think he is saying that all civil penalties were ecclesiastical penalties” in my sentence above, the image I was trying to convey was, imagine a State applying a penalty to a criminal for committing theft. Suppose they fine him. If all civil penalties were ecclesiastical penalties, then the image that comes to mind is, the Church would say, Yeah, when the government fined that man, they did it on behalf of the Church too, the penalty was an ecclesiastical penalty.

I do not think Schaff is trying to suggest that that was the situation. I think he is just trying to say that the civil authorities could fine people for stealing civilian property, and the Church could fine people for stealing Church property: the penalties issued by the civil authorities for civil crimes, other than the death penalty, were also issuable by Church authorities for ecclesiastical crimes.

I hope that explanation makes sense.

BTW I do think the line between Church and State was clear enough that the authorities could easily determine whether someone was banished from Church property or from State property. Does that explanation ring true to you?

the scope of Trent’s reference to alia interim pœna is not limited by the canon itself, and would have been rather variably so under different governments.

I do not think this Canon relates to governments at all, do you? I think it only refers to penalties applied by Church authorities.

 

[AbideWithMe]

(In fact I believe the Twelfth Ecumenical Council forbade the use of death or tortuous ordeals as ecclesiastical penalties in Canon 18, and I think that became an official part of Canon Law from them on. Please let me know what you think of that.) The death penalty was sometimes used for heresy, and they didn’t seem to be ashamed of it. I agree with that part of your sentence. But I think the evidence suggests that they ordinarily used the death penalty Only on heresies that taught their adherents to reject the civil authorities. Thus, I don’t think the death penalty was used as commonly against heretics as I think you suppose. But that’s what I think. What do you think? As I said before, I think there is good evidence that the Canon is only referring to ecclesiastical penalties, and I think that excludes the death penalty, as well as your interpretation. I think it would be very reasonable to exclude that interpretation, because I don’t think they were referring to the way governments dealt with heresy at all.

I hope that helps. God bless!

Dmar—

Hey, it looks like we’re southeast PA neighbors.

I read the link–thanks. I read section 3, too, of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council: “On Heretics”. It seems to me that it spells out in greater detail the sort of penalties which might be pertinent to the topic; there were penalties for the actual heretics (those baptized as infants who did not want to live by the baptism given to them) and penalties for those who allowed the heretics to live as such.

 

[Contarini]

Again what is it? Not the said canon XIV of baptism. It does not endorse civil penalties.
There is none. I challenge you to point it out if it is there.

I already have. Again, I think you continue to be confused by the language. I’ll cut out the intervening phrases to make the point clearer:

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are . . . not to be compelled . . . . by any other penalty [than exclusion from the sacraments] let him be anathema…

Logically, that says that they should be (or at least legitimately may be) compelled by penalties other than exclusion from the sacraments.

As I said, there are two things here:

(1) One who says X will be anathema, and
(2) X is what is being said, this, “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; “

Exactly.

Point (1) is rather straight forward. You give wrong teaching that is not approved by the Church, you are an anathema. But point (2) is the content of that teaching that if one teaches it, one will be an anathema. That is more relevant to me since the OP mentioned about coercion. I don’t know. As a Catholic, I think I should clarify on that.

Point (2) does not mention coercion.

Yes, it says that “they are not to be compelled” except by excommunication. Since this is condemned, the Council is saying that they are to be compelled (or at least that civil rulers may rightly compel). That is coercion.

Even though a person should not be allowed to be left to their own will ( I erred for saying that they should be allowed to be left to their own will), the penalty mentioned for doing so is nevertheless NOT stated.

You mean “the penalty that is to be imposed instead of leaving people to their own will.”

Since this is about baptism, an ecclesiastical document, it should follow that the penalty should be ecclesiastical penalty, that is, pertaining to spiritual.

By your way of thinking. Not by the well-documented teaching and policy of the late medieval and early modern Church. You are imposing on the text your faith-based assumption that the Council can’t possibly have taught anything you don’t believe.

It was standard practice ever since the fourth century to employ the civil arm to impose penalties on heretics. Until the 12th century the Church urged the civil rulers to use only non-lethal methods–after that time the Church endorsed and encouraged the execution of heretics if they refused to repent or repeatedly returned to their heresy. (The Church, in fact, could impose non-lethal temporal penalties such as imprisonment on its own behalf, but did not execute heretics directly.)

This is common knowledge and not open to debate. No qualified scholar would dispute it. People dispute it on this forum because they do not know history and because they are blindly committed to whitewashing the Church.

To be fair, one of the penalties imposed on heretics, which the Council no doubt has in mind here, was public penance, which I suppose is technically as “spiritual” punishment. But because this was a coercive penance involving public shaming, it was effectively a temporal punishment as well (very much like putting someone in the pillory or the stocks). It was coercive and if people refused to do it they could be executed, because refusal to do penance would mark you as impenitent (obviously).

In short, sin.

Explain how this works. The Church makes people sin as a punishment for the sins they have already committed?

This is just crazy.

If you simply mean “by refusing to repent they will be left in their sins,” that would be the 'leaving them to their own will" that the Council explicitly condemns. You are desperately trying to make the Council say the exact opposite of what it says.

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church, not Catholic authorities, whatever that means.

Catholic rulers who took seriously their task of repressing heresy in order to promote the common good and the welfare (spiritual as well as temporal) of their subjects.

The Catholic Church can declare what is sin. I understand you are not Catholic. For this I suggest Catholicism for dummies, it is not an insult to you, but you can find some simple and basic information about Catholicism there.

It is an insult. And it’s remarkably silly and irrelevant. Perhaps you should read a little early modern history, while we’re making recommendations:shrug:.

The Church has imposed commandments ( the Six Commandments of the Church, for example). Transgressing these Commandments constitute sin for the faithful.

Yes, but the Church isn’t imposing sin as a penalty. You aren’t making any sense.

Further penalty. What penalty? You were suggesting civil penalty, burning at stake. I didn’t. Simply for the fact that this is an ecclesiastical document and the only penalty that it can ascribe to is ecclesiastical.

That just isn’t true. For one thing, the Church did impose penalties such as public penance, which were coercive and had civil effects (i.e., people were publicly shamed and their social standing was affected, etc.). For another, the text doesn’t speak specifically of what the Church does but of what should be done. The implication is that it’s including the civil authorities, who directly imposed the death penalty on the impenitent. It was an entire system, and the Council is affirming its basic principles (without specifying the details) and condemning those who attack it.

The people who were in the Church might have done many bad things in the past but the Church is not stupid. They committed the abuses despite the Church’s teaching.

I know you need to believe that. But the evidence here is clear: the Church is defending the use of penalties other than excommunication, and indeed condemning those who criticize the coercive system that was in place. These were not “abuses” committed despite the Church’s teaching (of course the system might be applied with unnecessary cruelty and that would be an abuse–the purpose was always to bring people to repentance and if that was impossible to punish them so as to deter others). When Michael Sattler asked for a priest to talk to him and try to convince him he was wrong and the [civil] judge said, “The hangman will dispute with you, you heretic!” that was an abuse. That was against the Church’s teaching. But executing an impenitent heretic, when all reasonable attempts had been made to get him to repent, was not an abuse by the standards of the time.

If it is for the government to punish people, then it is civil penalties, by civil laws; not ecclesiastical penalty, not by the canon.

You don’t understand the late medieval/early modern system of cooperation between Church and state. The canon is condemning those who oppose the system by which both Church and state worked together to coerce people, with the Church establishing right doctrine and imposing lesser penalties, and the state taking over with the “sword” if the Church was unable to get the heretic to repent.

Yours is dishonest. I am beginning to feel that you are trying to put aspersion into the Church. It is sad. It is not that I am defending the Church blindly but it is still wrong to impute thing to a document which is not there. I am sorry to say that but if it should come to this, you are erring and if you say you don’t, then you are simply dishonest in this discussion.

I think my arguments speak for themselves to everyone who is not blindly determined to whitewash the record. You have made a number of statements that show that you haven’t got a clue as to how things worked in the sixteenth century. Perhaps less reliance on Catholicism for Dummies and more on historical accounts of the period would be a good idea! (I’d recommend the chapter called “The Willingness to Kill” in Brad Gregory’s Salvation at Stake as a good starting point.)

Edwin