The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[PeaceInChrist]

You don’t think that considering the time that the CC was most likely referring to the harsh punishments in documents like the Fourth Lateran Council and Papal Bull against Luther #33?

I addressed the burning of heretics in my post. Catholic states didn’t, to my knowledge, ever go to the lengths of burning every single Protestant they could find, as did states like England. Even Luther wanted Anabaptists downed.

Besides this, you are the one making a claim as to the result of this canon, which seems to be that, as a direct result of this canon, heretics were burned. You have shown no evidence of this. Only that around the same time period, heretics were burned. Correlation does not equal causation. Substantiate your claim, please.

 

[AbideWithMe]

The Church claims that what is taught as dogma is infallible. What is taught authoritatively at one time may later change.

As to this canon, Jesus Peace Love made very good points: we have no idea what the possible repercussions were, as they are in no way implied. They could have very well been the losing of job or office within the Church, or exclusion from Church specific community. We have no idea, and to declare otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Even when it comes to heretics being burned, leaders among heretics were the ones put to death, and by the state at that. Protestant countries, like England, put every Catholic discovered to death at times.

Also, I posted on the subject a thought that no one acknowledged: that, like the disciplines from Acts 15 (not to eat blood, strangled animals, meat sacrificed to idols), it was an imposition for the time, applicable to that time period in its disciplinary purpose. Almost no Christians follow the precepts of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and that draws no qualms, but for some reason this one does.

There are so many logical errors happening on both sides of this argument, from simply denying the canon says what it says, to drawing unwarranted conclusions. It needs to stop.

PeaceInChrist—First, I appreciate that you’re trying to be even-handed in discussion.

As I asked JesusPeaceLove, where did anyone insist that the penalties had to be prison or death? I know I never implied anything like that; I don’t think Dronald did either, although I think he’s being reasonable in wondering if some of the required penalties for heretics and those who harbored them, as clearly listed in the Twelfth Ecumenical Council, may have continued in use for these apostates and heretics. (Were those required penalties ever specifically removed? If so, where?) I remember Contarini specifically stated that we were not absolutely sure what the penalties were. I don’t think Badnewsbarrett insisted the penalties had to be prison or death, either.

I have to get to sleep, but I think it would be a worthwhile continuation of the thread to discuss the other thoughts you raised.

 

[benhur]

“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!”

I just reread the baptismal canons of Trent and I would add it is more about not questioning one’s faith , it is about not questioning the Church, period. Even the lack of freedom (of conscience), as noted in this canon 10 but also Canon 8:

If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema.

After rereading I see had it wrong before. This canon is not just about infant baptism as you say T, but is very specific about penalties, and that sacramental penalties only (like what we are used to today, or what are “biblical”) is “anathema”.

I see now what the thread is bringing to light.

C.S. Lewis said something like that those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past. Another words he warned of using present condition "glasses’’ for accurately viewing “history” (or in this case Canon 10, even 8 of Trent)

Blessings

 

[dronald]

I addressed the burning of heretics in my post. Catholic states didn’t, to my knowledge, ever go to the lengths of burning every single Protestant they could find, as did states like England. Even Luther wanted Anabaptists downed.

Besides this, you are the one making a claim as to the result of this canon, which seems to be that, as a direct result of this canon, heretics were burned. You have shown no evidence of this. Only that around the same time period, heretics were burned. Correlation does not equal causation. Substantiate your claim, please.

I’m bringing up a specific bull that says burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit, which was certainly in the same timeframe.

"Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the **expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. **Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance.​

So if only the expulsion and extermination of heretics was still practiced to this day the Catholic Church would be happy?..

“Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation—no less learned than true and holy—of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history”​

So wars fought, blood shed, actions against Jerome of Prague (burned) Hussites (leader burned), Wycliffe (treated terribly before death), and all those influenced who were fought and exterminated is condoned in this Bull. Even the Pope admits he could go on, but it would be too much…

"In virtue of our pastoral office **committed to us by the divine favor **we can under no circumstances **tolerate or overlook **any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.​

Apparently disagreeing with this belief cannot be tolerated or overlooked any longer…

 

[GKC]

I just reread the baptismal canons of Trent and I would add it is more about not questioning one’s faith , it is about not questioning the Church, period. Even the lack of freedom (of conscience), as noted in this canon 10 but also Canon 8:

If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema.

After rereading I see had it wrong before. This canon is not just about infant baptism as you say T, but is very specific about penalties, and that sacramental penalties only (like what we are used to today, or what are “biblical”) is “anathema”.

I see now what the thread is bringing to light.

C.S. Lewis said something like that those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past. Another words he warned of using present condition "glasses’’ for accurately viewing “history” (or in this case Canon 10, even 8 of Trent)

Blessings

“The unhistorical are usually, without knowing it, enslaved to a fairly recent past”. "DE DESCRIPTIONE TEMPORUM", in SELECTED LITERARY ESSAYS, 1979, p.12.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I’m bringing up a specific bull that says burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit, which was certainly in the same timeframe.

"Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the **expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany. **Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance.​

So if only the expulsion and extermination of heretics was still practiced to this day the Catholic Church would be happy?..

“Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation—no less learned than true and holy—of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history”​

So wars fought, blood shed, actions against Jerome of Prague (burned) Hussites (leader burned), Wycliffe (treated terribly before death), and all those influenced who were fought and exterminated is condoned in this Bull. Even the Pope admits he could go on, but it would be too much…

"In virtue of our pastoral office **committed to us by the divine favor **we can under no circumstances **tolerate or overlook **any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.​

Apparently disagreeing with this belief cannot be tolerated or overlooked any longer…

Fascinating. And where in that Bull is this canon referenced as the justification for burning heretics?

Also, Papal Bulls also do not invoke infallibility. There is actually very little that does. Just FYI.

How would you respond to the persecution of Catholics by Protestant Christians? Essentially every Christian state that became Protestant persecuted Catholics or other Christians, including the reformers who came up with the five solas. Does this impeach their teachings? Or was it perhaps justified because it was considered treason? If it does not impugn their teachings or it was justified, would this courtesy also be extended to the Catholics?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

PeaceInChrist—First, I appreciate that you’re trying to be even-handed in discussion.

As I asked JesusPeaceLove, where did anyone insist that the penalties had to be prison or death? I know I never implied anything like that; I don’t think Dronald did either, although I think he’s being reasonable in wondering if some of the required penalties for heretics and those who harbored them, as clearly listed in the Twelfth Ecumenical Council, may have continued in use for these apostates and heretics. (Were those required penalties ever specifically removed? If so, where?) I remember Contarini specifically stated that we were not absolutely sure what the penalties were. I don’t think Badnewsbarrett insisted the penalties had to be prison or death, either.

I have to get to sleep, but I think it would be a worthwhile continuation of the thread to discuss the other thoughts you raised.

Droland is indeed implying that, as seen in his continual mention of a papal bull that mentions burning heretics, but that does not once reference this canon. That heretics were burned is not being disputed. That this canon had any effect is unknowable.

Are the canons still in effect? Hmmm. I don’t know. Do you still abstain from blood and strangled animals and meat sacrificed to idols? It’s in the bible, commanded by the Apostles in Acts 15, after all. When were they specifically removed? Are you sinning if you eat a rare steak?

Maybe if we look at current theology, we will find which of them still apply and which don’t. Nowhere in the current catechism does it mention burning heretics. In fact, it states the opposite: a spirit of ecumenism and charity. I also see no restrictions on blood or meat. So it seems Acts 15 is void or no longer applies to this time period. So it seems with burning heretics and many many other disciplines.

So, is eating a rare steak a sin? Do you abide by Acts 15? If not, why are you bringing up a 500 year old canon that applied to a specific time period?

 

[Picky_Picky]

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

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

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

 

[ericc]

I still fail to see where coercion occurs. If penalties are not prescribed, the intensity of the physical penalties are in the mind of those who see the worst possible scenario, the claim of coercion is invalid, without substance.

“they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty,” I read this multiple times, I understand that those who no longer wishes to be bound by their baptismal vows are to be left alone, and to be treated as excommunicated till they repent. That is fair to both parties. You are free to renounce your faith/vows and that cuts you off from the community that initially you are a part of but now you no longer wishes to be bound to.

So where is the smoking gun, where is the coercion? Unless one lump excommunication as coercion which is laughable.

Although I am not that keen on old English, this is what I understood by the text. Someone please correct me and point me to the words of coercion in that text if you think I read it incorrectly. I am going by the common understanding of coercion where there is a threat of physical violence to the body. Hellfire is not included.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I still fail to see where coercion occurs. If penalties are not prescribed, the intensity of the physical penalties are in the mind of those who see the worst possible scenario, the claim of coercion is invalid, without substance.

“they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty,” I read this multiple times, I understand that those who no longer wishes to be bound by their baptismal vows are to be left alone, and to be treated as excommunicated till they repent. That is fair to both parties. You are free to renounce your faith/vows and that cuts you off from the community that initially you are a part of but now you no longer wishes to be bound to.

So where is the smoking gun, where is the coercion? Unless one lump excommunication as coercion which is laughable.

Although I am not that keen on old English, this is what I understood by the text. Someone please correct me and point me to the words of coercion in that text if you think I read it incorrectly. I am going by the common understanding of coercion where there is a threat of physical violence to the body. Hellfire is not included.

Because, I’m afraid, the canon says that anyone holding that opinion — the opinion that “they are to be left to their own will”, etc — is anathema. The opinion that you say is “fair enough” is the one the canon condemns.

 

[GKC]

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

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

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

Yep.

 

[benhur]

“The unhistorical are usually, without knowing it, enslaved to a fairly recent past”. "DE DESCRIPTIONE TEMPORUM", in SELECTED LITERARY ESSAYS, 1979, p.12.

There it is. I hope my paraphrase was ok. I can never remember it exactly. Thank you

 

[benhur]

Because, I’m afraid, the canon says that anyone holding that opinion — the opinion that “they are to be left to their own will”, etc — is anathema. The opinion that you say is “fair enough” is the one the canon condemns.

Agree. I had to read it many times to see exactly what they were anathemizing, which the entire statement # 10, everything preceding “anathema”. Another words, what most of us (C’s an P’s) think is fair and right today in #10 is anathema.

 

[GKC]

There it is. I hope my paraphrase was ok. I can never remember it exactly. Thank you

You are very welcome, and yes, the paraphrasing is fine.

Back in 2013, the same quote came up here, with an allusion to the Papacy, as being an example of Lewis’ thought on that subject. That seemed unlikely, and since I’ve been a Lewis collector for 50 years, I tracked it down to its source, back then. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Papacy. I often try to do that, sometimes purely for info/fun, with authors I’ve collected for that long.

 

[ericc]

Because, I’m afraid, the canon says that anyone holding that opinion — the opinion that “they are to be left to their own will”, etc — is anathema. The opinion that you say is “fair enough” is the one the canon condemns.

But that is not coercion. If one holds an opinion which is contrary to the Church, the Church reserves the right to not accept that person’s membership in the church. “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matthew 18:17). This canon does not force you via physical force to comply, which is commonly defined as coercion. It does not even force anyone to remain Catholic. One can therefore excommunicate oneself by not obeying the Church instructions. The Church for example reserves the right to excommunicate anyone who engage in abortion or desecrating the Eucharist. The Church has responsibility to regulate and forbid certain behaviors. Obviously not all may agree to the reasoning behind certain rules, but to remain Catholic in good standing, obedience is key regardless of personal opinions.

I admit I have not look at why this is an excommunicable offense. (Which is a different topic altogether) I have not searched for it other than trying to find why folks find this an example of coercive behavior where no prescribed physical punishment is mentioned.

 

[Picky_Picky]

But that is not coercion. If one holds an opinion which is contrary to the Church, the Church reserves the right to not accept that person’s membership in the church. “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matthew 18:17). This canon does not force you via physical force to comply, which is commonly defined as coercion. It does not even force anyone to remain Catholic. One can therefore excommunicate oneself by not obeying the Church instructions. The Church for example reserves the right to excommunicate anyone who engage in abortion or desecrating the Eucharist. The Church has responsibility to regulate and forbid certain behaviors. Obviously not all may agree to the reasoning behind certain rules, but to remain Catholic in good standing, obedience is key regardless of personal opinions.

I admit I have not look at why this is an excommunicable offense. (Which is a different topic altogether) I have not searched for it other than trying to find why folks find this an example of coercive behavior where no prescribed physical punishment is mentioned.

It does not force anyone to use physical force. It does say that a person renouncing the baptism he or she received as an infant should be compelled to live as a Christian, and that not only excommunication but “other penalties” may be used to compel this person against their will. And that anyone who denies this is a heretic, anathema.

 

[benhur]

But that is not coercion. If one holds an opinion which is contrary to the Church, the Church reserves the right to not accept that person’s membership in the church. “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matthew 18:17). This canon does not force you via physical force to comply, which is commonly defined as coercion. It does not even force anyone to remain Catholic. One can therefore excommunicate oneself by not obeying the Church instructions. The Church for example reserves the right to excommunicate anyone who engage in abortion or desecrating the Eucharist. The Church has responsibility to regulate and forbid certain behaviors. Obviously not all may agree to the reasoning behind certain rules, but to remain Catholic in good standing, obedience is key regardless of personal opinions.

I admit I have not look at why this is an excommunicable offense. (Which is a different topic altogether) I have not searched for it other than trying to find why folks find this an example of coercive behavior where no prescribed physical punishment is mentioned.

It seems to imply excommunication for rejecting infant baptismal vows is anathema, that excommunication is not enough ( unless you think the canon says the person should not be excommunicated from the churches sacraments, like allow taking communion though disavowing baptismal faith).

 

[ericc]

It does not force anyone to use physical force. It does say that a person renouncing the baptism he or she received as an infant should be compelled to live as a Christian, and that not only excommunication but “other penalties” may be used to compel this person against their will. And that anyone who denies this is a heretic, anathema.

It seems to imply excommunication for rejecting infant baptismal vows is anathema, that excommunication is not enough ( unless you think the canon says the person should not be excommunicated from the churches sacraments, like allow taking communion though disavowing baptismal faith).

But “other penalties” need not necessarily equate to coercion. That is my point. The language does not point to it. If you are able to show that in actual fact that “other penalties” are indeed coercive, you may have a point.

Many, many of these canons end up with this anathema warning. Why is this canon in particular falls under the coercive category and not the others? I failed to see the point others are trying to make of this canon.

There are Catholics whose views are not aligned perfectly with the Church, but there is no coercive force to compel them to be obedient. The Church may withheld certain sacraments from those disobedient and to those of extreme disobedience, excommunication.

Secondly, and more importantly this canon according to those who pointed out, applies to those who say it is ok to let those who wanna out , stay out. The Church says it is not ok. If one insist on saying that, the Church says one may be excommed.

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 words that are bracketed in red being what was being said by the offender. This canon provides for anathema for saying those words, it does not provide “other penalties”. The “other penalties” that you mentioned are actually the words said by the offender.

This canon does not address those who doesn’t want to keep their infant baptismal vows anymore.

But this canon does address what is not permissible. The Church didn’t want such people to make statements which may be construed as doctrines/practices by those less knowledgeable for the Church whereas they are not permitted to do so. I can imagine these smart alec offenders telling others that it is ok to do this, ok to do that and not that when they have no such knowledge or authority to advise others on what is permissible or not. That is all I can read from the text. There is no smoking gun. All you have is a mole hill. The Church is wisely prohibiting people from coming out with their own versions of permissible behavior. She has shown leadership in other areas prohibiting wrong interpretations, wrong beliefs, wrong books to read and so on.

 

[Picky_Picky]

But “other penalties” need not necessarily equate to coercion. That is my point. The language does not point to it. If you are able to show that in actual fact that “other penalties” are indeed coercive, you may have a point.

Many, many of these canons end up with this anathema warning. Why is this canon in particular falls under the coercive category and not the others? I failed to see the point others are trying to make of this canon.

There are Catholics whose views are not aligned perfectly with the Church, but there is no coercive force to compel them to be obedient. The Church may withheld certain sacraments from those disobedient and to those of extreme disobedience, excommunication.

Secondly, and more importantly this canon according to those who pointed out, applies to those who say it is ok to let those who wanna out , stay out. The Church says it is not ok. If one insist on saying that, the Church says one may be excommed.

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 words that are bracketed in red being what was being said by the offender. This canon provides for anathema for saying those words, it does not provide “other penalties”. The “other penalties” that you mentioned are actually the words said by the offender.

This canon does not address those who doesn’t want to keep their infant baptismal vows anymore.

But this canon does address what is not permissible. The Church didn’t want such people to make statements which may be construed as doctrines/practices by those less knowledgeable for the Church whereas they are not permitted to do so. I can imagine these smart alec offenders telling others that it is ok to do this, ok to do that and not that when they have no such knowledge or authority to advise others on what is permissible or not. That is all I can read from the text. There is no smoking gun. All you have is a mole hill. The Church is wisely prohibiting people from coming out with their own versions of permissible behavior. She has shown leadership in other areas prohibiting wrong interpretations, wrong beliefs, wrong books to read and so on.

Well, I think you are giving the canon quite a measure of benefit of the doubt. To suggest that all the canon was concerned with was unauthorised advice is a lovely interpretation, and I wish you well of it.

Of course you are right that it is the offender that saith “…are not to be compelled … by any other penalty …” and the canon that says such a statement is anathema. It is not, therefore, I think, going beyond a reasonable understanding to hold that the canon is saying that the truth is that someone renouncing their infant baptism may be so compelled. And I don’t comprehend your difficulty in accepting that compulsion is coercion.

But no doubt you won’t be shifted from the explanation in your last paragraph.

 

[ericc]

Well, I think you are giving the canon quite a measure of benefit of the doubt. To suggest that all the canon was concerned with was unauthorised advice is a lovely interpretation, and I wish you well of it.

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

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

Of course you are right that it is the offender that saith “…are not to be compelled … by any other penalty …” and the canon that says such a statement is anathema.

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

It is not, therefore, I think, going beyond a reasonable understanding to hold that the canon is saying that the truth is that someone renouncing their infant baptism may be so compelled. And I don’t comprehend your difficulty in accepting that compulsion is coercion.

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

But no doubt you won’t be shifted from the explanation in your last paragraph.

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

At this stage, I am claiming that :

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

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

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

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