The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[benhur]

I think we have diverted towards other canons before we have even resolved canon XIV. The OP topic is alleged coercion on canon XIV , not whether the Council has the power to regulate Catholics, which the Council has. Why stop at Trent, there are many other Councils. But losing focus on the topic is exasperating is it not? If anyone wants to discuss other canons, they should start a new thread.

Hey , not that far off. Can’t get much closer than 6 canons away. Actually I thought it is relevant, a bit.

Not sure that the council did not try to regulate just Catholics but lapsing or those possibly switching to protestantism. So yes, still regulating Catholics, but a certain kind. And that regulating some see as coercion. So then, some just deny it, others admit it it but that it is out of love, as a parent for a child, even good shepherding, others that the “regulating” was unknown as to its method or harshness as unspecified in the canon.

 

[benhur]

I simply see that the Church is stopping the general lay people from proclaiming all sorts of remedies and penalties for subjects that they have no authority to speak. Namely:

a) they are to be left to their own will - they are prescribing a course of action
b) not to be compelled - prescribing controls
c) deciding which Sacraments to be withheld - not something the non-priest is qualified to decide. Even priests do seek guidance from superiors before denying anyone the sacraments.
d) until they repent - prescribing a conditional event

The person who says all these really have no business regulating Church governance. This is not the jurisdiction of the lay catholic.

Hi ericc,
Sounds good, just that in seems to be too much in a vacuum, as if it were not counter reformational, as if there were no clergy in the heretics/protestants. Much more than just regulating lay people and the canon does not address that the heretical regulators are lay or not, priests or not.

Agree that it is about the CC maintaining its church governance, authority and theology in face of schism.

Blessings

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hey , not that far off. Can’t get much closer than 6 canons away. Actually I thought it is relevant, a bit.

Not sure that the council did not try to regulate just Catholics but lapsing or those possibly switching to protestantism. So yes, still regulating Catholics, but a certain kind. And that regulating some see as coercion. So then, some just deny it, others admit it it but that it is out of love, as a parent for a child, even good shepherding, others that the “regulating” was unknown as to its method or harshness as unspecified in the canon.

… and some that it’s out of date, I’d have thought.

 

[benhur]

… and some that it’s out of date, I’d have thought.

Yep forgot that one. Maybe only in practice, but not sure if I missed a post that it has been “overwritten”, which I thought was also part of the OP topic, that it has not (still in the books).

Blessings

 

[Genesis315]

The canon doesn’t say anyone can “compel.” It should be understood as reserved to the Bishop or those acting with the bishop’s authority. I also don’t see why this is controversial. It is incorporated into the current Code of Canon Law (see below). All societies need to be able to enforce their rules or their is chaos. Likewise, sometimes a good shepherd has to use his crook to keep the sheep in the right pasture, so they don’t stray into danger. Note, this only applies to the baptized, who, by consenting to baptism consent to be subject to the Church’s jurisdiction:

The Church can coerce her erring members with both spiritual and temporal penalties:
Canon Law:

Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.

Can. 1312 §1. The following are penal sanctions in the Church:

1/ medicinal penalties, or censures, which are listed in ⇒ cann. 1331-1333;

2/ expiatory penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336.

§2. The law can establish other expiatory penalties which deprive a member of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good and which are consistent with the supernatural purpose of the Church.

§3. Penal remedies and penances are also used; the former especially to prevent delicts, the latter to substitute for or to increase a penalty.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4U.HTM

Note, the “Christian faithful” are defined as the baptized:
Canon Law:

Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PT.HTM

 

[Picky_Picky]

The canon doesn’t say anyone can “compel.” It should be understood as reserved to the Bishop or those acting with the bishop’s authority. I also don’t see why this is controversial. It is incorporated into the current Code of Canon Law (see below). All societies need to be able to enforce their rules or their is chaos. Likewise, sometimes a good shepherd has to use his crook to keep the sheep in the right pasture, so they don’t stray into danger. Note, this only applies to the baptized, who, by consenting to baptism consent to be subject to the Church’s jurisdiction:

The Church can coerce her erring members with both spiritual and temporal penalties:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4U.HTM

Note, the “Christian faithful” are defined as the baptized:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PT.HTM

Although you will note that the canon under discussion specifically does not apply to those who have consented to baptism, but to those whose consent does not exist.

But your reference is very useful: that gun is certainly smoking as far as coercion is concerned.

 

[benhur]

The canon doesn’t say anyone can “compel.”

Right. The canon anathemizes those who do not compel or compel with barring from sacraments only.

 

[ericc]

Hi ericc,
Sounds good, just that in seems to be too much in a vacuum, as if it were not counter reformational, as if there were no clergy in the heretics/protestants. Much more than just regulating lay people and the canon does not address that the heretical regulators are lay or not, priests or not.

Agree that it is about the CC maintaining its church governance, authority and theology in face of schism.

Blessings

Even without the reformation thingy, lay people ought not get into such things. We do have loose mouth folks who think they know everything, prescribing all sorts of remedies and what have you. Even today, we still see that! But if it is not serious enough, the Church will probably just ignore it.

I think canon language tend to be rather broad based, not differentiating clergy or lay people. And it is prudent to word it for everyone so that rogue priests are covered as well as the absent minded, careless, loose mouth etc and it must apply to everyone for it to be true.

But seriously, this is the the last canon on the baptism section. It doesn’t have an anti-reformation position at all, not a whiff. Some of the earlier canons on baptism may be seen as treading on Protestant waters. But again, it is tough to face the different multiple fronts of protestant thoughts on baptism. We can’t formulate a new canon just to counter for every differing protestant view on baptism, which is not few.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Even without the reformation thingy, lay people ought not get into such things. We do have loose mouth folks who think they know everything, prescribing all sorts of remedies and what have you. Even today, we still see that! But if it is not serious enough, the Church will probably just ignore it.

I think canon language tend to be rather broad based, not differentiating clergy or lay people. And it is prudent to word it for everyone so that rogue priests are covered as well as the absent minded, careless, loose mouth etc and it must apply to everyone for it to be true.

But seriously, this is the the last canon on the baptism section. It doesn’t have an anti-reformation position at all, not a whiff. Some of the earlier canons on baptism may be seen as treading on Protestant waters. But again, it is tough to face the different multiple fronts of protestant thoughts on baptism. We can’t formulate a new canon just to counter for every differing protestant view on baptism, which is not few.

Yes it seems to be aimed at the thinking of Erasmus who was of course a Catholic humanist, although he was critical enough of the church of his day for his writings to be placed on the Index, I believe.

 

[GKC]

Yes it seems to be aimed at the thinking of Erasmus who was of course a Catholic humanist, although he was critical enough of the church of his day for his writings to be placed on the Index, I believe.

On the pre-Trent index,prohibited, and on the post-Trent index, permitted, but expurgated, as necessary. Or so I’ve read.

 

[Telstar]

So if the first two conditions are met, and someone disobeys the church and heretically asks the baptism subject if they wish to ratify the vows made on their behalf, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, is it your opinion that Trent believes “they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform”?

I’m not really sure which ‘two conditions’ you’re referring to, above. Anyone that would engage in asking someone to ratify their vows, because they were Baptized as a child, would automatically fall under the category of, “If anyone says”. They would then become subject to excommunication (anathema) for doing so. Since the canon says that no one has any right to ask the question for that particular reason (because they were baptized as an infant), then all of the punishments/penalties mentioned in the canon are still null and void. But now, you’re getting back into proposing hypothetical situations that are completely irrelevant to this canon.

I think the debate the canon rules on is clear. There are those who think people cannot be bound by vows made on their behalf when they were infants, but should be free to make their own choice when they are adult. Trent says that view is heretical: baptism is not something to be put on and taken off; it is a sacrament which indelibly marks the subject as a Christian and, as a Christian, subject to the church.

The part I highlighted in red is one of the most significant things that is being debated, here. The term “vows” is often used to refer to the promises made by godparents on behalf of their godchild in Baptism. In adult Baptism, they are considered to be actual vows taken by the candidate. I already posted this passage from New Advent, once before.Baptismal Vows: The name popularly given to the renunciations required of an adult candidate for baptism just before the sacrament is conferred. In the case of infant baptism, they are made in the name of the child by the sponsors. It is obvious that these promises have not the theological import of vows properly so called. According to the Roman Ritual, at present in use, three questions are to be addressed to the person to be baptized, as follows: “Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps?” To each of these interrogation the person, or the sponsor in his name, replies: “I do renounce”. So, the vows pronounced by the sponsors are not considered to be the same as they are for adults.

But, there is another fact that always seems to be overlooked in this whole discussion. The Catholic Church also has the Sacrament of Confirmation that a child receives when they reach their mid-teens (age of reason), in which they restate their Baptismal vows for themselves. This is where they receive the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, conferred on them through the Bishop by the ‘laying on of hands’ (in my day, it was done through a slap in the face). They are then considered to be Confirmed in the Catholic Faith by becoming full members of the Church Militant (the Church on earth) and Soldiers of Christ. Confirmation is a form and rite of preparation, so we will have the strength and fortitude to do battle against the ‘principalities and powers’ of the devil.

For this reason, there is no need for anyone to ever be “asked” this question again, when they become an adult, because it would be redundant, redundant. They were already asked to do it in Confirmation. Non-Catholics tend to ignore that fact, or they are completely unaware of what the Sacrament of Confirmation means in the Catholic Church. This is why the Council condemns anyone that says the question “should be asked” of adults.

 

[Genesis315]

Although you will note that the canon under discussion specifically does not apply to those who have consented to baptism, but to those whose consent does not exist.

But your reference is very useful: that gun is certainly smoking as far as coercion is concerned.

Parents consent on behalf of their children by proxy. This happens in many contexts in civil society as well. For the same reason, the Church has also always considered it unlawful to baptize a child against the will of the child’s parents. St. Thomas discusses this in the Summa in the section on the recipients of baptism.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m not really sure which ‘two conditions’ you’re referring to, above. Anyone that would engage in asking someone to ratify their vows, because they were Baptized as a child, would automatically fall under the category of, “If anyone says”. They would then become subject to excommunication (anathema) for doing so. Since the canon says that no one has any right to ask the question for that particular reason (because they were baptized as an infant), then all of the punishments/penalties mentioned in the canon are still null and void. But now, you’re getting back into proposing hypothetical situations that are completely irrelevant to this canon.

The part I highlighted in red is one of the most significant things that is being debated, here. The term “vows” is often used to refer to the promises made by godparents on behalf of their godchild in Baptism. In adult Baptism, they are considered to be actual vows taken by the candidate. I already posted this passage from New Advent, once before.Baptismal Vows: The name popularly given to the renunciations required of an adult candidate for baptism just before the sacrament is conferred. In the case of infant baptism, they are made in the name of the child by the sponsors. It is obvious that these promises have not the theological import of vows properly so called. According to the Roman Ritual, at present in use, three questions are to be addressed to the person to be baptized, as follows: “Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps?” To each of these interrogation the person, or the sponsor in his name, replies: “I do renounce”. So, the vows pronounced by the sponsors are not considered to be the same as they are for adults.

But, there is another fact that always seems to be overlooked in this whole discussion. The Catholic Church also has the Sacrament of Confirmation that a child receives when they reach their mid-teens (age of reason), in which they restate their Baptismal vows for themselves. This is where they receive the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, conferred on them through the Bishop by the ‘laying on of hands’ (in my day, it was done through a slap in the face). They are then considered to be Confirmed in the Catholic Faith by becoming full members of the Church Militant (the Church on earth) and Soldiers of Christ. Confirmation is a form and rite of preparation, so we will have the strength and fortitude to do battle against the ‘principalities and powers’ of the devil.

For this reason, there is no need for anyone to ever be “asked” this question again, when they become an adult, because it would be redundant, redundant. They were already asked to do it in Confirmation. Non-Catholics tend to ignore that fact, or they are completely unaware of what the Sacrament of Confirmation means in the Catholic Church. This is why the Council condemns anyone that says the question “should be asked” of adults.

Telstar—I’m just going by memory here from something I read a few weeks back, but the online Catholic Encyclopedia entry on “Confirmation” said that at the time of Trent, Confirmation itself was controversial and questionable to some. I think it’s very plausible Erasmus’ proposal of ratification was intended by him as part of a sort of confirmation, since confirmation at the time was not the settled ceremony it later became. Reading about Erasmus, as a Renaissance Humanist, I think he was interested in promoting human free will, but had no intention of having his ratification proposal taken as a questioning of the validity of infant baptism (though some apparently did think it could call infant baptism into question).

Sorry for not citing sources…I just stopped in briefly on a break. I know I owe you another reply to an earlier post.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’m not really sure which ‘two conditions’ you’re referring to, above. Anyone that would engage in asking someone to ratify their vows, because they were Baptized as a child, would automatically fall under the category of, “If anyone says”. They would then become subject to excommunication (anathema) for doing so. Since the canon says that no one has any right to ask the question for that particular reason (because they were baptized as an infant), then all of the punishments/penalties mentioned in the canon are still null and void. But now, you’re getting back into proposing hypothetical situations that are completely irrelevant to this canon.

Mmm. I wonder why, if these hypothetical questions are completely irrelevant to this canon, the canon goes to such trouble to spell them out. Can I ask you to consider the possibility that you might answer my question?

If someone disobeys the church and heretically asks the baptism subject if they wish to ratify the vows made on their behalf, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, is it your opinion that Trent believes “they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform”?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Parents consent on behalf of their children by proxy. This happens in many contexts in civil society as well. For the same reason, the Church has also always considered it unlawful to baptize a child against the will of the child’s parents. St. Thomas discusses this in the Summa in the section on the recipients of baptism.

It does happen in many contexts in civil society, you are right. Although it is also usual in civil society to allow adults their own freedom to decide in such matters.

 

[Telstar]

Mmm. I wonder why, if these hypothetical questions are completely irrelevant to this canon, the canon goes to such trouble to spell them out. Can I ask you to consider the possibility that you might answer my question?

I think the reason the canon spells them out is to show that the Council was addressing several errors in what Erasmus (and others) proposed. The Council was not the one proposing any punishment. First of all, it was pointing out the error of questioning someone’s Baptismal vows in adulthood, for obvious reasons. Then, it was reminding people that they are not to make any statements, or suggest what punishments might be appropriate for the Church to impose in any situation that they are not qualified to comment on, publicly. These things should have been discussed with his superiors in private correspondence, and not made in a public statement. He had no authority to do that.

If someone disobeys the church and heretically asks the baptism subject if they wish to ratify the vows made on their behalf, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, is it your opinion that Trent believes “they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform”?

Sorry, but I won’t get into any kind of debate over hypothetical situations that are unrelated to the subject. I refuse to try to second guess what the Council would have, or should have done, in any of those situations. I have no idea. It’s not in my job description. You shouldn’t expect any Catholic to answer any of those questions. They are not directly related to this canon, no matter how much people outside the Church are trying to make them seem to be. The only punishment suggested by the Church was the anathema on anyone who believed what was being proposed, because those who made that suggestion overstepped their bounds, and had no authority to propose anything like it.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I think the reason the canon spells them out is to show that the Council was addressing several errors in what Erasmus (and others) proposed. The Council was not the one proposing any punishment. First of all, it was pointing out the error of questioning someone’s Baptismal vows in adulthood, for obvious reasons. Then, it was reminding people that they are not to make any statements, or suggest what punishments might be appropriate for the Church to impose in any situation that they are not qualified to comment on, publicly. These things should have been discussed with his superiors in private correspondence, and not made in a public statement. He had no authority to do that.

Sorry, but I won’t get into any kind of debate over hypothetical situations that are unrelated to the subject. I refuse to try to second guess what the Council would have, or should have done, in any of those situations. I have no idea. It’s not in my job description. You shouldn’t expect any Catholic to answer any of those questions. They are not directly related to this canon, no matter how much people outside the Church are trying to make them seem to be. The only punishment suggested by the Church was the anathema on anyone who believed what was being proposed, because those who made that suggestion overstepped their bounds, and had no authority to propose anything like it.

Ah well; impasse.

 

[benhur]

Sorry, but I won’t get into any kind of debate over hypothetical situations

Every canon is hypothetical. Picky quoted the canon exactly as stated that you call hypothetical…??

 

[benhur]

Telstar—I’m just going by memory here from something I read a few weeks back, but the online Catholic Encyclopedia entry on “Confirmation” said that at the time of Trent, Confirmation itself was controversial and questionable to some. I think it’s very plausible Erasmus’ proposal of ratification was intended by him as part of a sort of confirmation, since confirmation at the time was not the settled ceremony it later became. Reading about Erasmus, as a Renaissance Humanist, I think he was interested in promoting human free will, but had no intention of having his ratification proposal taken as a questioning of the validity of infant baptism (though some apparently did think it could call infant baptism into question).

Sorry for not citing sources…I just stopped in briefly on a break. I know I owe you another reply to an earlier post.

Very good stuff.Thank you.I thought I partly addressed confirmation also **.So is the Bishop anathema for asking the question at Confirmation ? **Telstar states , "Anyone that would engage in asking someone to ratify their vows, because they were Baptized as a child, would automatically fall under the category of, “If anyone says”.

 

[Telstar]

Every canon is hypothetical. Picky quoted the canon exactly as stated that you call hypothetical…??

First of all, Picky only quoted one section of the canon to serve his purpose. Then, he wanted me to answer his hypothetical question, just based on that small section. But, I refused to speculate about what the Council might have done in his hypothetical situation. I don’t have any authority to speak for the Council members that have been dead for almost 500 years. No offense, ben, but I won’t be goaded into speculating what the Council ‘might have done’ by you, either. I already stated my own opinion on what I believe the whole canon means, and that’s as far as I’m willing to go.

**So is the Bishop anathema for asking the question at Confirmation ? **Telstar states , "Anyone that would engage in asking someone to ratify their vows, because they were Baptized as a child, would automatically fall under the category of, “If anyone says”.

Yes, I did say that, but you’re reading it wrong. After reading this whole thread and seeing the way some people interpret what they read, that really shouldn’t surprise me at all. Maybe it would help if I add a little emphasis on the most significant point that I was trying to make."‘Anyone that would engage in asking someone to ratify their vows, because they were Baptized as a child, would automatically fall under the category of, “If anyone says”.’

In the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Bishop asks the candidates to restate their Baptismal vows, in order to confirm that they freely accept the vows that were made for them by their sponsors (not to retake them to make them “real”). The Bishop doesn’t question the validity of their Baptism, just because they were Baptized when they were babies.