The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Mystophilus]

That’s anachronistic language. There was no “switching of denominations” in the sixteenth century. That’s not how anyone thought of it.

To sixteenth century Catholics, becoming Protestant was abandoning the Faith.

I might well fail to appreciate how anomalous this is, but Trent does talk about Protestants as sharing the same broader faith. There are two guarantees of safe conduct, which are rather peculiar if the council was anti-Protestant, and the thirteenth session refers to “those, of the most noble province of Germany, who call themselves Protestants”, expressing the wish in relation to them that “even as all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer, so may all say the same thing, believe the same, think the same”. This demonstrates a recognition that the Protestants fall within the bounds of Christianity.

Given that Session Six, in chapter 16 and canon 33 on Justification, refers to “Catholic doctrine”, Session Seven’s canon 14 on Baptism could have referred to “Catholic life” rather the “Christian life”.

Trent seems to have carefully avoided the sorts of polemics which became more common later (and, in some cases, persist today), and thus the problem with 7.14’s alia poena is that, in an age when secular penalties were applied by religious authorities, the Council set no limit on the degree of force to be used.

 

[Thomas1981]

I think this thread is spent, as in spinning wheels in the mud and going nowhere. Good bless you all and have a great day!

 

[Contarini]

The canon is a legal document, and then as now, legal texts are intended to mean only what they say. In this case, I think the canon is intended to deny the proposition it refers to. The proposition it refers to does not explicitly refer to the government or the political situation of the time.

It doesn’t specify. You and others are insisting that the party “compelling” must be the Church. But it doesn’t say that. The party compelling could be either the Church or the civil authorities.

And in fact, interpreters of legal texts routinely refer to the historical contest of a law to determine intent. Court decisions frequently do this.

Of course there’s the whole “original intent” vs. “evolving” issue with regard to the Constitution. But both sides in those debates still look at the historical circumstances that give a clue as to what the language of the law means.

For instance, in discussing what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, it’s obviously relevant to look at the punishments being inflicted in the 18th century, such as hanging, drawing, and quartering.

But I’m not arguing about what the application of this text is to Catholics today. I’m pointing out the obvious meaning of the law in its original context. And it clearly meant “coercing apostates to return to the Church is legitimate.”

To me, the canon seems to imply at most that it is okay to exercise coercive authority by imposing penalties other than excommunication on a heretic. That does not imply anything about whether or not the government should coerce, not to me anyway.

True, it might be done directly by the Church–but without government support it wouldn’t be very easy to maintain a coercive regime.

And I have acknowledged several times that the canon doesn’t explicitly say “the person should be compelled” only “condemned are those who say that they shouldn’t be.” So it might just be defending the legitimacy of such punishments.

I am annoyed by the accusation that I’m reading things into the text because I have very carefully avoided doing so.

But it’s not a stretch to say that when certain penalties are being imposed, and the Church condemns those who criticize the imposition of heretics, that it is tacitly endorsing the penalties that are actually in place.

Again, it’s not a stretch to say that the authors of the Bill of Rights had in mind such things as the common British punishment for treason when they spoke of “cruel and unusual punishments,” when that was a punishment many of them had potentially incurred by their rebellion and it would have been on their minds. That’s not reading things into the text. It would be reading things into the text to say “cruel and unusual punishments refers only to hanging, drawing, and quartering, and nothing else counts as cruel and unusual.”

I think the canon itself implies that excommunication fits that definition, and yet everyone acknowledges that being excommunicated doesn’t force you to do anything. In light of that, I don’t think we can extend the meaning of the word to refer to other, really forcible things.

It forces you to do things because you don’t like the consequences of being excommunicated. The “penalties” being spoken of must be something that people who are not moved by exclusion from the Sacraments find a “compelling” reason to return to the practice of the Christian life. That’s the bottom line.

Now it might refer to such things as being excluded from various positions, being socially shunned, etc.

Again, historically we know what it generally referred to. But I have admitted several times now that as a legal text it doesn’t necessarily mandate those things. Those things are surely the proper starting point for a discussion of what the text means, just as cruel 18th-century punishments actually in force at the time are the proper context for understanding what the Bill of Rights means when it speaks of cruel punishment.

The canon says other penalties can be used. It doesn’t say by whom or how forcible those penalties can be, and therefore I don’t think the OP should use this canon to imply that the Church requires us to believe that physical coercion can be used by secular authorities.

I agree. The Church clearly doesn’t require that. But the Church’s present policy is hard to square with this canon of Trent.

I agree that Trent doesn’t require the secular authorities per se to exert coercion.

But in fact, for most ex-Catholics, the only consequence of leaving the Church is exclusion from the Sacraments. Isn’t that plainly true?

I also think your interlocutor is correct that the documentary context is ecclesiastical, not civil, and therefore if we had to guess who the wielder of coercive power was supposed to be in the council fathers’ minds, I think the safe guess would be that the Church wields the coercive power. It doesn’t say that, and I don’t think we should impose the political situation of the time into the meaning of the canon. As a legal document, I think it only means what it says.

No, you don’t. For one thing, the phrase “it means what it says” usually really means “it means what I say it means.” But furthermore, you are reading into the text something you admit it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say that civil authorities exert the power–but it doesn’t say that it doesn’t. Your assumption that it doesn’t mean that is not found in the text. I am not arguing that the Canon specifies either religious or civil authorities. You are arguing, without much basis, that it implicitly specifies religious authorities. So who’s reading in something that isn’t there?

Since it doesn’t specify, I take it to mean that coercion by either religious or civil authorities is legitimate.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I might well fail to appreciate how anomalous this is, but Trent does talk about Protestants as sharing the same broader faith. There are two guarantees of safe conduct, which are rather peculiar if the council was anti-Protestant, and the thirteenth session refers to “those, of the most noble province of Germany, who call themselves Protestants”, expressing the wish in relation to them that “even as all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer, so may all say the same thing, believe the same, think the same”. This demonstrates a recognition that the Protestants fall within the bounds of Christianity.

Note however that it doesn’t use the word “faith.” It says that they “acknowledge the same God and Redeemer” but not that they share the same faith. According to Aquinas, a heretic can’t have faith, because faith is an integral whole. So they would be seen as having rejected the Faith (Aquinas distinguishes between rejection “in the figure” like Jews and Muslims, and rejection “in the manifestation” which he identifies with heretics). I think some allowance would have to be made here for diplomatic language–not that the Council was insincere, but that it was being as gracious as it could be without being insincere.

Given that Session Six, in chapter 16 and canon 33 on Justification, refers to “Catholic doctrine”, Session Seven’s canon 14 on Baptism could have referred to “Catholic life” rather the “Christian life”.

That’s an ingenious objection, but it would be stronger if you can find places where the phrase “Catholic life” is used. I think that adherence to the Catholic faith would be seen as an integral part of a Christian life. But I may be wrong there.

Trent seems to have carefully avoided the sorts of polemics which became more common later (and, in some cases, persist today), and thus the problem with 7.14’s alia poena is that, in an age when secular penalties were applied by religious authorities, the Council set no limit on the degree of force to be used.

Right. Hence my claim that it’s tacitly endorsing the regime that actually existed. But I agree that as a legal text it certainly isn’t mandating any specific punishment.

And that does fit with the general caution and moderation of the language.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is my understanding that the justification of the death penalty in regard to heresy remained unchanged from at least from the fourth century to the twelfth, and remains the same in modern times as it was then. The Donatists come to mind on this point as an early example where heretics were killed because they were a persistent threat to the community (source), and the Catechism’s doctrine on the death penalty comes to mind as acknowledging the theoretical possibility that a heretic could be killed if he or she was a persistent threat to the community (source). I don’t think the ecclesiastical legislation between 1100 and 1700 was any different. I think it’s very important to acknowledge that, because I think the Church is referring to those penalties, not to penalties applied by civil authorities. The State might execute someone for impenitence under certain circumstances, but I don’t think it’s fair to treat that as the standard punishment for impenitence. I think it depended on heresy you were impenitent about.

I disagree on both parts of your first sentence. The Church did not sanction the death penalty against the Donatists. The Donatists claimed that one of their leaders, at least, had been killed, but the Catholics claimed that he committed suicide (that he fell off a cliff seems clear–the question is whether he jumped or was pushed). Now I’m suspicious of that story (sounds too much like the old “shot while trying to escape”), but he certainly wasn’t legally executed, much less with the approval of the Church. The Byzantines did kill some heretics, I believe. But at least in the West, the Church was opposed to the death penalty for heresy until the 12th century.

CCC 2267 does not mention heresy.

I believe that during the period when the DP was in effect for heresy, any heresy in principle carried the death penalty. Heresy was not just error, but obstinate denial of the teaching of the Church. If you denied the Church’s teaching at any point, you were seen as denying the Church’s teaching as a whole. But in practice, of course some heresies were pursued more zealously than others and there was a wide latitude for prudence and mercy.

Edwin

 

[Mystophilus]

Note however that it doesn’t use the word “faith.” It says that they “acknowledge the same God and Redeemer” but not that they share the same faith.

True, but then compare that with Session 15’s ‘Safe Conduct Given to the Protestants’, which uses the phrase “all and each of the faithful of Christ” for them, and canon 3 on Baptism’s “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”, acknowledging the existence of multiple churches and implying by its specification of “the Roman church” that other churches could be fairly charged with this failing.

I think some allowance would have to be made here for diplomatic language–not that the Council was insincere, but that it was being as gracious as it could be without being insincere.

Agreed: that same passage in Session 15 guarantees to Protestants the right “to dispute, or to confer in charity, without any hindrance, with those who may have been selected by the Council, all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language being utterly discarded”. Diplomacy was an explicit concern because they were trying to encourage reunification.

That’s an ingenious objection, but it would be stronger if you can find places where the phrase “Catholic life” is used. I think that adherence to the Catholic faith would be seen as an integral part of a Christian life. But I may be wrong there.

My reading is not provable, certainly, but is instead a suspicion resulting partly from the unusualness of that phrase within the Council documents (Trent never uses “Catholic life”, and only uses “Christian life” twice: 7.14 and Session 14, On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, Second Session, introduction) and partly from the wider historical context: the Council took place during the Ottoman expansion past the Balkans and deeper into Europe. Trent was only about 400 miles from the new border, beyond which the Ottomans were turning baptized Christian children into Janissaries. I cannot help but wonder whether canon 14 on baptism might have been aimed eastwards.

 

[Mystophilus]

I think this thread is spent, as in spinning wheels in the mud and going nowhere. Good bless you all and have a great day!

I think that it has been obscured somewhat by people’s arguing different matters in different directions, but the presumption that there is nothing further of interest in this historical matter seems thoroughly premature.

 

[Reuben_J]

Also, I’m reading the texts in their historical context, which you refuse to do.

And you CANNOT do that to a legal text. You are murdering it. This is canon law.

You have to think like a lawyer, a canon lawyer, in interpreting the article, which I believe you are not. If you are an expert in history, what you are doing is only summarizing what people did in that time, rightly or wrongly.

And as far as history is concerned, I want to make it clear I have no argument with it nor do I want to white wash church history or try to pretend that abuses did not happen, your insinuation about my ignorance and ad hominem notwithstanding. But thank you very much for the condescending tone.

But as far as interpreting this canon, I would not take you as an authorative voice on it, unless you are a canon lawyer. I could talk to my emeritus bishop who is one, perhaps over dinner if I have a chance, and get his opinion of this canon, but as far as both of us are concerned, we are just grappling in the dark over issue that is not in our respective dominion. Of course, not that we cannot discuss it.

And as you are reading the text (canon XIV of baptism of the Council of Trent 1546) in its historical context, I am reading it through the theological belief of the Church. But please I am no theologian. However, the Church belief has never changed and any canon law has to be faithful to the spirit of that belief otherwise she would be an unbelieving Church. That I did not concede which you mistakenly thought I just wanted to hear what I want to believe.

Thus a piece of canon law has to be treated and read faithfully according to its content. Adding anything to it would be an injustice and wrongful application of it. Poor victims of unscrupulous people when that happened, for the law of God cannot be trampled with the law of man.

Your only alternative here is to suggest that the “penalty” is the sin itself, which makes absolutely no sense. The Church is not saying that people should be compelled to sin.

I will again put up the said canon for our 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.

Again, two things here (of course this is just how I see it):

(1) The one says the highlighted part will be an anathema. That is the only punishment for heretics – anathema.

(2) About recanting baptismal vows. There are two penalties. One is excommunication (there are different levels of excommunication) where he is not allowed to receive the sacraments. Catholicism for dummies would tell us an excommunicated fellow is not being condemned altogether; he will go back to the Church once he changes his mind (repents).

Now it mentions another penalty. What could that be, it does not say so. But it says that person still has to **be compelled to a Christian life by any other penalty. **

What is the highest deterrent in a religious context for a person to be compelled, to be moved in his heart, to undertake to change or to do something? I would say it is sin. It is between him and God, and sin is the highest deterrence.

It is within the Church privilege to declare what is a sin. But a canon law must not only be seen as punitive, it is also rehabilitative.

In other word here, while a person is excommunicated by not receiving the sacraments, you must remember, it is not a sin living in excommunication (you are in error in saying that he is already living in sin), here it says, it is, if he does not live a Christian life. Catholicism for dummies says an excommunicated person is still obligated to attend mass.

Now I feel that there is a big attempt here to tie this canon to civil punishment such as burning at stake. I do not see it at that. I feel it is illogical if it is so. The penalty has to be religious and spiritual in nature. Apostasy is not forcibly prevented, one can leave (and thus stripped of his privilege in the Church) but it will be at the expense of becoming an unbeliever in which God will be the judge.

As for the rest of your posts which is ranting of your highly esteemed expound of history, I think only divert from the topic at hand, clouding it and thus a distraction. Perhaps another thread of the Church history should be well in place.

Reuben

 

[Reuben_J]

Now it mentions another penalty. What could that be, it does not say so. But it says that person still has to **be compelled to a Christian life by any other penalty. **

What is the highest deterrent in a religious context for a person to be compelled, to be moved in his heart, to undertake to change or to do something? I would say it is sin. It is between him and God, and sin is the highest deterrence.

It is within the Church privilege to declare what is a sin. But a canon law must not only be seen as punitive, it is also rehabilitative.

You cannot force a person, imprison him, shackle him, shame him in public, confiscate his property, fine him with huge amount of money until he is left with nothing else, take away his wife and his children, or even burn him alive, if his heart does not believe, none of these will make him believe. Thus there is no use in doing all these to him. It only reduces you who do that to him as a scoundrel and a sadist; and that makes yourself an abomination.

So what is a penalty that will compel a person to Christian life? What will make him doing it being urged from the voice of his heart?

Obviously it will be his belief as his belief not to believe no matter what kinds of torture you inflict on him.

In the Christian context this is always sin – as how David repented, as how the people of Nineveh repented. For sin is a separation of man from God, his Maker. And how his soul yearns for Him like a deer yearns for a running stream. If he sins, he will miss out on the reward of God’s presence, and our instinct is not wanting to. Our soul will not rest until it rests in Him.

It is not unreasonable therefore to think that not living the Christian life, perhaps specifically here at least by attending mass, since the barring from receiving the sacraments is mentioned, will lead one away from God and thus one will sin.

The Church makes that pronouncement (perhaps) since it is mentioned that the excommunicate person shall not receive the sacraments, it does not mean that he stops attending church (mass) altogether (live the Christian life), and failing to do so, the penalty for it will be sin, even if he does not commit any other sin per se.

Excommunication from receiving the sacraments still necessitate the person to live the Christian life, otherwise it will be sin. It is not unusual for canon to state in explicit term what may be just common sense to us.

Reuben

 

[SAVINGRACE]

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

What he /\ said.

 

[Contarini]

And you CANNOT do that to a legal text. You are murdering it. This is canon law.

Is it? It looks like doctrine to me. As you have pointed out, it doesn’t specify penalties. It’s simply a statement of principle that it’s wrong to say that people who choose to walk away from their baptismal vows should be allowed to do so with no penalty other than exclusion from the sacraments. That doesn’t seem like canon law to me. But I admit that I’m no canon lawyer. I’m a lowly church historian.

And I’m interested in this as a historical text. What did the Fathers of Trent mean? You apparently think this is just a trivial consideration.

If your understanding of Church teaching/law leads you to dismiss history as irrelevant, then that’s a pretty heavy strike against your theology as far as I’m concerned.

I think you need to consider the effect that your glib dismissals of history have on people here who are inquiring into Catholicism. You are undercutting all the claims about history supporting Catholicism. You are doing exactly what Newman accused the Protestants of doing (trying to insulate yourself from history so it won’t judge you), but using canon law language rather than an appeal to Scripture.

However, the Church belief has never changed and any canon law has to be faithful to the spirit of that belief otherwise she would be an unbelieving Church. That I did not concede which you mistakenly thought I just wanted to hear what I want to believe.

Actually you did just concede exactly that. You just conceded that you will impose on the text an interpretation that fits your premise that Church belief has never changed. You are incapable of considering any interpretation that would contradict your premise. That is to say, you can’t read the text honestly.

Again, two things here (of course this is just how I see it):

(1) The one says the highlighted part will be an anathema. That is the only punishment for heretics – anathema.

But the text doesn’t say that. It says the opposite.

(2) About recanting baptismal vows. There are two penalties. One is excommunication (there are different levels of excommunication) where he is not allowed to receive the sacraments. Catholicism for dummies would tell us an excommunicated fellow is not being condemned altogether; he will go back to the Church once he changes his mind (repents).

Right. It’s a penalty intended to “compel people to a Christian life.” But according to Trent it’s not enough. Further penalties are appropriate, and denying them puts you under anathema.

What is the highest deterrent in a religious context for a person to be compelled, to be moved in his heart, to undertake to change or to do something? I would say it is sin. It is between him and God, and sin is the highest deterrence.

Sin compels people to lead a Christian life? This makes no sense at all. It never has. And repeating it over and over doesn’t make it any more reasonable.

In other word here, while a person is excommunicated by not receiving the sacraments, you must remember, it is not a sin living in excommunication

The sin is abandoning your baptismal vows. That’s surely sin, right?

Now I feel that there is a big attempt here to tie this canon to civil punishment such as burning at stake. I do not see it at that. I feel it is illogical if it is so. The penalty has to be religious and spiritual in nature. Apostasy is not forcibly prevented, one can leave (and thus stripped of his privilege in the Church) but it will be at the expense of becoming an unbeliever in which God will be the judge.

And being an unbeliever compels you to lead a Christian life how?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You cannot force a person, imprison him, shackle him, shame him in public, confiscate his property, fine him with huge amount of money until he is left with nothing else, take away his wife and his children, or even burn him alive, if his heart does not believe, none of these will make him believe.

But it may compel him to live a Christian life. And that outward conformity, in the minds of all early modern people, is a good thing for society as a whole. Furthermore, Catholics of the period believed that the practice of good habits and exposure to the means of grace, even if coerced, might eventually bear fruit. That’s why in Spain Jews were forced to hear a sermon once a year. That’s why Pascal, in his famous “wager,” urged unbelievers to act as if they believed. You can’t compel faith. But you can compel social and even personal circumstances under which faith may arise.

Your refusal to consider history blinds you. "And I’m sorry, I’m going to keep on saying it, because it’s true. You can’t understand an early modern text if you’re unwilling to read it in the context of early modern culture. You keep reading it as a modern Westerner who believes in religious liberty. That causes you to distort it radically.

So what is a penalty that will compel a person to Christian life? What will make him doing it being urged from the voice of his heart? . . .

In the Christian context this is always sin – as how David repented, as how the people of Nineveh repented. For sin is a separation of man from God, his Maker. And how his soul yearns for Him like a deer yearns for a running stream. If he sins, he will miss out on the reward of God’s presence, and our instinct is not wanting to. Our soul will not rest until it rests in Him.

But these are people who have rejected their baptismal vows. They are already in sin, by the premises of the Council. So no, you aren’t making sense.

Edwin

 

[czarlazar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reuben J View Post
You cannot force a person, imprison him, shackle him, shame him in public, confiscate his property, fine him with huge amount of money until he is left with nothing else, take away his wife and his children, or even burn him alive, if his heart does not believe, none of these will make him believe.

But it may compel him to live a Christian life. And that outward conformity, in the minds of all early modern people, is a good thing for society as a whole.

Compel him how? Good for who’s society?
How the Ustaše compelled? How it was good for Catholic Ustaše society?
My friend, this is a dangerous idea with a slippery slope.

 

[Mystophilus]

What he /\ said.

What he said fails to address the issue raised by the OP.

The issue at hand is this: in 1547, during the early and very tense days of the Reformation, the Council of Trent made an array of pronouncements about what was and was not acceptable from a Catholic point of view. One of these says (paraphrased) that it is unacceptable to say
that you can ask a now-matured, previously-baptized person
whether s/he agrees with
what his/her baptismal sponsors promised
and, if s/he says disagrees,
let that disagreement stand without using more than exclusion from the sacraments to compel him/her to repent.

It does not stop at “you can ask”, but continues on through “ask and then fail to act to compel”.

(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.)

The crucial issue, then, is what might have been included under “any other penalty”, since a) Trent failed to limit it in any fashion, b) arrest, fining, imprisonment, and torture were already penalties available to the church, c) execution, via the assistance of the secular government, was also available to the church.

On one hand, the presumption that Trent meant nothing more than excluding the dissenting adult from the sacraments is denied by the text itself. On the other, brutal measures were as counterproductive then as now. On the first, again, we do have records of people using brutal measures in that historical context - Guantanamo Bay is nothing new. On the second, again, the word for “compel” could be translated “urge”. On the first, the reference to “Christian life” could indicate that this is actually a reference not to Protestants but to Christians turning Muslim under the ascendant Ottoman Empire. On the second, there is no direct reference to that, and the Council focused generally on matters within Catholic Europe.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

What he said fails to address the issue raised by the OP.

The issue at hand is this: in 1547, during the early and very tense days of the Reformation, the Council of Trent made an array of pronouncements about what was and was not acceptable from a Catholic point of view. One of these says (paraphrased) that it is unacceptable to say
that you can ask a now-matured, previously-baptized person
whether s/he agrees with
what his/her baptismal sponsors promised
and, if s/he says disagrees,
let that disagreement stand without using more than exclusion from the sacraments to compel him/her to repent.

It does not stop at “you can ask”, but continues on through “ask and then fail to act to compel”.

(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.)

The crucial issue, then, is what might have been included under “any other penalty”, since a) Trent failed to limit it in any fashion, b) arrest, fining, imprisonment, and torture were already penalties available to the church, c) execution, via the assistance of the secular government, was also available to the church.

On one hand, the presumption that Trent meant nothing more than excluding the dissenting adult from the sacraments is denied by the text itself. On the other, brutal measures were as counterproductive then as now. On the first, again, we do have records of people using brutal measures in that historical context - Guantanamo Bay is nothing new. On the second, again, the word for “compel” could be translated “urge”. On the first, the reference to “Christian life” could indicate that this is actually a reference not to Protestants but to Christians turning Muslim under the ascendant Ottoman Empire. On the second, there is no direct reference to that, and the Council focused generally on matters within Catholic Europe.

You are assuming. (see highlighted above) You don’t have any proof to support that assertion. The text seems pretty clear, you are seeing more to it than what it plainly says. “They are NOT to be compelled by any other penalty”. We believe there is a penalty worse than torture, imprisonment, arrest or fining and that is the eternal penalty resulting from an unrepentant soul.

 

[Mystophilus]

The text seems pretty clear, you are seeing more to it than what it plainly says. “They are NOT to be compelled by any other penalty”.

So, if I say to my kids, “If anyone comes to the door and says that he’s a friend of your parents and that you should let him in, call us”, then you imagine that I am telling my kids that they should let anyone in who comes to the door and claims to be a friend of their parents? Sorry, but that is not how English grammar works and not what the text says at all. Let me see if I can break this down for you a bit better, by merely highlighting the two discursive levels:

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.

The discursive frame (in red) is “If anyone says X and Y, let him be anathema”. The clause “are not to be compelled” is thus part of the second object of “says”: it is part of the comment which brings the anathema. It is also here, just as clear, in the original Latin.

Far from claiming that they are not to be compelled, i.e. that it is no big deal if a baptized child grows up and decides to leave the Church and so the only penalty will be the withholding of the very sacraments which the person has left, the canon affirms that the importance of baptism is such that steps must be taken to ensure that the baptized person does not simply walk away. The question, then, is what those steps are, since Trent sets no limit to them and people in the period applied extreme measures to similar cases.

 

[Reuben_J]

Is it? It looks like doctrine to me. As you have pointed out, it doesn’t specify penalties.

Whatever it is, it must not contradict Church belief. Your suggestion was civil punishment as penalty and burning on stake was mentioned. That is against the Church belief and no canon law or doctrine should do that. How could a Church dispense with what she does not believe?

It’s simply a statement of principle that it’s wrong to say that people who choose to walk away from their baptismal vows should be allowed to do so with no penalty other than exclusion from the sacraments.

No, I did not say that. I clarify – as I said, and now for the sake of emphasis, there are two penalties (in that canon), not one, for a person who do not ratify his baptismal vows.
One is excommunication which is a very severe penalty. Two, my take, it is a sin if he does not live a Christian life. The threat of sin compel him to lead the Christian life. And this is as much as the Church can do in this case. What do you expect her to do?

That doesn’t seem like canon law to me.

Why not? Does it have to state the specific of the penalty? Does it have to say, the penalty is by burning at stake? And that is exactly the point – if the specific is not stated, then it is very wrong to say that burning at stake is the penalty.

I have offered that generally in a religious understanding that a sin is a penalty. Perhaps you are thinking of some kinds of temporal penance that the convict must go through. If that is so, still, that penance is for the sin committed, otherwise why the penance? But even then, as far as penance is concerned, very often it is just spiritual in nature, seldom physical and never as harsh as corporal punishment. Burning on stake? Urrgh!

But I admit that I’m no canon lawyer. I’m a lowly church historian.

And I am nothing by comparison, but just an ordinary Catholic parishioner. You seemed to go very strong on me though, and your claim now looks very much like false humility. It’s ok with me. I say out my thought on this topic, and you yours, regardless of whatever my personal standing is.

And I’m interested in this as a historical text.

Sure, I understand that.

What did the Fathers of Trent mean? You apparently think this is just a trivial consideration.

I did not think history is trivial, you are misreading me. I simply think it is wrong to interpret the canon by what some people did on its account because there could be wrong interpretation of it or just for the fact that people did not refer to it when they meted out punishment and we thought they did. In other word, abuse happened.

We can read the Council of Trent, they are available in the internet. I am sure being a scholar you may have hard copy of them in the library.

Just remember this: Trent is a very important milestone in the Church history and many of its promulgations on many aspects of the Church belief are still being referred to today.

Would you believe that a person who recants his Baptismal vow be burned on stake? The Council was convened at a time when there was uprising within the Church and clergies started to introduce new different doctrines. The Council, as usually they were, simply put thing clear and in perspective.

The people who held power in the Church may be mala fide (in bad faith) in carrying out punishment against wrongdoers, but the canon would not state something that was against the Church belief. Thus you do not see ‘burning on stake’ as a penalty in it.

If it is not in the canon, how could then, they carried out something else? That has to be in civil penalty. In some countries where there is no separation of church and state, the clergies would be seen as the culprits but not the canon.

I hope that makes sense. If not, it is my language the culprit, pun unintended.

To be continued ……

 

[Reuben_J]

…… continuation

Right. It’s a penalty intended to “compel people to a Christian life.” But according to Trent it’s not enough. Further penalties are appropriate, and denying them puts you under anathema.

It does not say that. Anathema is for the one preaching it (clergies or lay). Once anathematized, you are not part of the Church anymore. Being barred from sacraments, one still does though. The one being ‘compelled’ to Christian life is one who does not ratify his Baptismal vow.

Sin. The threat of sin compels one to a Christian life. What compels you to Christian life?
If I do not live the Christian life, I am in sin. That compels me to live the Christian life. I spoke on this in a separate post though.

Canon XIV does not say it is not enough. It says excommunication (barred from sacrament) and another penalty. Excommunication is not a sin (the reason for excommunication may be). So if you add sin as another penalty, in this case I suggested is sin, the canon is not repeating itself or being redundant. I cannot think of something else. Definitely not burning people on stake just for that. The government can do that but the canon did not say that.

But these are people who have rejected their baptismal vows. They are already in sin, by the premises of the Council. So no, you aren’t making sense.

This is why I suggested Catholicism for dummies! There is no point in going into the deep when you miss the surface.

They reject their Baptismal vows, they sinned. It does not mean they are committing other sins. It is one sin only. Catholics confess their sins in their numbers.

Rejecting their baptismal vows, they cannot receive sacraments. Most Catholics are fine with this. They are still Catholics and still go to church. It is just a sin of omission or lack of faith, no matter how sinful that may be. But that does not mean they stop going to church altogether. There are people who are in this situation – do not believe in what their Baptism entails but they still go to church.

Perhaps you are thinking of something very dramatic out of this canon. Perhaps you are seeing too much medieval age movies and scenes of tortures and untold abuses by Catholic clergies disgusted you. And how your Protestant trained mind must surely hate them so.

The canon sometimes is simpler and usually stating the obvious. In the light of what happened at Trent, many of the things there were to confirm what was already been believed.

Reuben

 

[Easter_Joey]

I think those who think the context involves no temporal consequences are missing the context, since I believe this canon was addressing a proposal that was associated with Erasmus.

Here’s the canon

First, it’s worth noting the Church has explicitly condemned torture in her recent catechism . While torture had often been used in the past, it was never formally defined as licit but just assumed an ok thing to do .

Now to the heart of the matter, which is

The penalty is never defined, so we can interpret that rather vaguely (although I think it would be necessary to assume the context concerns temporal matters). I would say the Church, if she had more control in society, would have as a penalty the inability to create laws or effect change in public life according to the desires of those who aren’t Christian or hold things contrary to Christianity, since it would be contrary to the common good. That would be a penalty, but it still wouldn’t have anything to do with forced conversions. :twocents:

Never mind, canon is about the Church’s authority

 

[Reuben_J]

What he /\ said.

Thanks. It was just a cursory comment on the canon and its spirit. I did not delve into it in details.

Nevertheless it speaks of the Church’s view and the consequences of Catholics giving false doctrine and baptized person recanting his baptismal vows. It also touches on baptism sponsors (Godfathers and parents), and their obligation and responsibilities to the child to grow up in the faith.

We should look into canon like this from time to time to remind us of who and what we are as baptized Christians.

God bless you.

Reuben