The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[ericc]

Canon XIV On Baptism, Trent seventh session

Well you just excommed me. And I asked for details exactly which part I violated the canon, you just repeat the mantra. That is not helpful. Argument by repetition does not work.

No, the Church is anathematising those who say one can renounce ones baptismal vows without penalty (other than excommunication), which is what you said in your post.

No that wasn’t what I intended. I explained that the canon is anathematizing those who make doctrinal statements on vow breakers. That was the context of several posts together. I may have failed to repeat the verbage of prior posts to avoid redundancy, but that was the point I am trying to make. If I confused you, I apologize.

#383 "the Church is not permitting these folks from prescribing judgement, penalties, conditions for these baptismal vow breakers. The Church is saying to these supporters; these proclamations are not of your jurisdiction. Do NOT make such statements, you have no authority to make such doctrinal statements. "

It is not possible to specify what penalties the canon envisages, because the canon does not specify them, just “other penalties”.

Which is unknown. And which may not be necessarily coercive. And the case falls apart since one can not determine decisively that is is coercive.

All the canons of Trent are in the formula “If any one saith (xx) let him be anathema” or “if any one denieth (xx) let him be anathema”. They are not canon after canon which omit to state whether the Church agrees or disagrees with (xx). They are saying (xx) is wrong (in the “saith” cases) and (xx) is right (in the “denieth” cases). I’m sorry, but there is no “other alternate explanation” that makes any sense. Read through Trent and see.

Law doesn’t work that way. If the law isn’t specific, inference what the law should have said or meant doesn’t carry much weight. Judges are reluctant to read beyond the letter of the law generally speaking in order to avoid law making. If one wants a law to have a certain effect, it must be worded correctly to obtain that effect, not appropriate its meaning from elsewhere.

At the time of Trent the Church had very considerable powers to coerce, up to and including handing heretics over to the civil authorities for execution. Her powers are now more limited, of course.

And there are many many places around the world that the Church has no jurisdiction at all. This is a global church. There is no guarantee that emperor/king/prince of Catholic countries may heed the commands of the Church. Some were not even on friendly terms with the Popes. The Church may be able to influence the behavior of some of those secular authorities, but that can’t be construed as having power to coerce or enforce. Secular authorities may action on some recommendation of the Church, but self interest of the secular authorities can not be ruled out either, the Church being a convenient excuse. The impression that these catholic rulers are at the disposal of the Church to action its penalties is just not readily supported.

I have no issue other than arguing against (what I see as) unreason. I do not concede that there is an alternative view of the canon that holds water.

And that is your prerogative to construe that unknown penalties must be coercive.

And do you see it as unreasonable for me to construe the view that the canon is merely prohibiting folks from making doctrinal statements? Do you see it unreasonable for me to look at Canon 14 on its own without referencing other canons?

Anyway, thank you for an enlightening discussion. My intention was to provide an alternate view. Many posts earlier, I mentioned that because we are not privy to the minutes of these meetings, we may never know the intention and mindset of the canon drafters. That was an extremely difficult environment to hold this Council that spanned several decades.

 

[Picky_Picky]

ericc: Let’s deal with the coercion thing first, because this may just be a usage thing. Several posters here think that coercion means “to compel by physical force or threats of physical force”, whereas to me coercion simply means “to compel” or “to compel by threats”. This may be a East/West of the Atlantic thing, or a generation thing, or simply an idiolect thing. At any rate, although we know that physical force was more freely used for coercion in Western Europe in the time of Trent than it is now, let me acknowledge that there is no mention of physical force in the canon.

Now as to interpretation of the canon as a whole. As I understand it you believe it means, or may reasonably be taken to mean, that any (unauthorised) one who makes (unauthorised) statements about doctrine is anathema, and further that it is therefore reasonable to understand the canon as making no ruling about whether a baptised child, on adulthood, should be asked if he/she wishes to abide by the vows made on his/her behalf, and no ruling on whether, if he/she declines to abide by them, he/she should be compelled so to do. I hope I’ve got that right!

Now it is true that syntactically the canon could be taken in the way you suggest, but only by ignoring the genre of Trent canon in which it is written (in other words I do not agree that it is reasonable to interpret the canon quite separately from other Trent canons). [end of part 1]

 

[Picky_Picky]

ericc: here are just some of the canons of Trent, the first five of those on baptism:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that the baptism of Christ has a different force from the baptism of John; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that natural water is necessary for baptism, and that the words of Christ in this regard are not a metaphor; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON III.-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; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that the Roman church has the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that a baptism, even by a heretic, if trinitarian and intending to do what the church intends, is true baptism; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that baptism is necessary for salvation; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

And so on through canon after canon after canon. I think your interpretation is wrong, indeed is unreasonable considering the genre of the Trent canons.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar—Erasmus made his proposal in positive form, such as, “Here is a question which I (Erasmus) propose we (the Church) ask those former infants who are now grown up, so of their own will they can answer; since I (Erasmus) realize there is some risk of getting a “no” answer if we (the Church) allow these grown ups to answer for themselves, then in that case here is my (Erasmus’) proposal of how we (the Church, in whose service I [Erasmus] am a theologian), should treat them.” The Council condemned the entire positive proposal in all its parts=Erasmus’ proposed question itself + Erasmus’ contingency plan if the question was answered with a “no”.

Then, the Council told Erasmus… “Hey, Erasmus… and anyone else that agrees with him… No one should ever ask anyone to ratify their Baptismal vows, again!!! They’re already Baptized!! It doesn’t matter if they were only babies when their Godparents took the vows for them. That’s why we asked them to renew their vows at their Confirmation!!! It’s all part of Christian initiation. Don’t you remember, anything??? So, don’t any of you even think about asking someone that question… because it’s heresy!!! Oh… by the way… don’t go telling people what you think the Church should or shouldn’t do to punish Catholics that might do something wrong, because you have no authority to do that, either!! What the heck are you thinking? That’s not your job! Now… we’re warning you… stop bugging people about their Baptism, or you and your buddies will be the ones getting the boot!!”

My sincerest apologies to all the Fathers of Trent, but some people just can’t read proper English, unless it’s written in modern day, street corner slang.

Sorry, AWM… maybe I should just go over here in the corner and …

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Picky_Picky]

Then, the Council told Erasmus… “Hey, Erasmus… and anyone else that agrees with him… No one should ever ask anyone to ratify their Baptismal vows, again!!! They’re already Baptized!! It doesn’t matter if they were only babies when their Godparents took the vows for them. That’s why we asked them to renew their vows at their Confirmation!!! It’s all part of Christian initiation. Don’t you remember, anything??? So, don’t any of you even think about asking someone that question… because it’s heresy!!! Oh… by the way… don’t go telling people what you think the Church should or shouldn’t do to punish Catholics that might do something wrong, because you have no authority to do that, either!! What the heck are you thinking? That’s not your job! Now… we’re warning you… stop bugging people about their Baptism, or you and your buddies will be the ones getting the boot!!”

My sincerest apologies to all the Fathers of Trent, but some people just can’t read proper English, unless it’s written in modern day, street corner slang.

Sorry, AWM… maybe I should just go over here in the corner and …

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Yes, it’s interesting that you split the two halves of the canon and interpret them differently. Part 1: Is it OK to ask those baptised as infants whether they stand by the vows? Ruling: No it certainly isn’t.

Part 2: Can the baptised reject the vows when they become adult, without penalty other than excommunication? Ruling: Well, I’m not going to tell you, because you have absolutely no right to ask.

It’s not clear why you interpret the first half the same as AWM and me, but the second half quite differently, rather after the manner of ericc.

And don’t do that to the wall! We’ll just have to paint it again!

 

[AbideWithMe]

Then, the Council told Erasmus… “Hey, Erasmus… and anyone else that agrees with him… No one should ever ask anyone to ratify their Baptismal vows, again!!! They’re already Baptized!! It doesn’t matter if they were only babies when their Godparents took the vows for them. That’s why we asked them to renew their vows at their Confirmation!!! It’s all part of Christian initiation. Don’t you remember, anything??? So, don’t any of you even think about asking someone that question… because it’s heresy!!! Oh… by the way… don’t go telling people what you think the Church should or shouldn’t do to punish Catholics that might do something wrong, because you have no authority to do that, either!! What the heck are you thinking? That’s not your job! Now… we’re warning you… stop bugging people about their Baptism, or you and your buddies will be the ones getting the boot!!”

My sincerest apologies to all the Fathers of Trent, but some people just can’t read proper English, unless it’s written in modern day, street corner slang.

Sorry, AWM… maybe I should just go over here in the corner and …

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Telstar–I wasn’t reinterpreting the canon in street corner slang, I was laying out a formula: a positive formula into which Erasmus’ proposal fits. Trent had laid before them a positive formula to consider, and they rejected all parts of that positive formula; if they hadn’t they wouldn’t have made the effort to include all parts of the rejected proposal. I respect the CC for the care it takes in choosing the wording of its documents and so should you. Instead, to arrive at the interpretation you’ve gotten stuck on, you openly struck out (in one of your earlier posts) more than half of the canon, as if the Council made a mistake to write the canon the way they did. Now, shouldn’t that be a clue to you that your own interpretation may be faulty?

 

[AbideWithMe]

ericc: here are just some of the canons of Trent, the first five of those on baptism:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that the baptism of Christ has a different force from the baptism of John; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that natural water is necessary for baptism, and that the words of Christ in this regard are not a metaphor; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON III.-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; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that the Roman church has the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that a baptism, even by a heretic, if trinitarian and intending to do what the church intends, is true baptism; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that baptism is necessary for salvation; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

And so on through canon after canon after canon. I think your interpretation is wrong, indeed is unreasonable considering the genre of the Trent canons.

It’s too bad, Eric, that you weren’t at Trent to tell them all they need to write is that no unauthorized person may say anything about doctrine. It would have saved a lot of time.

 

[ffg]

No, I hadn’t got brainwashing in mind, but I’m glad that’s ruled out!

No, we’re dealing here with an adult, baptised as a child, who in adulthood does not wish to be/remain a Christian. Do I understand you aright, that you think discipline should be imposed on this adult to make him conform? Surely not?

Hi Picky,

Surely not is correct with regard to force to conform, it’s not the same as making the kids eat their peas before leaving the table.

I jumped in because it seemed there was an argument where folks were not considering the act to withdraw having consequence, and it seemed the above type of pea discipline was the only type being considered to support.

Consider, if the Christian story is true, Eve and Adam kicked themselves out of Eden through disobedience. God didn’t force them back in.

I see a similarity in the current example. If someone wants to kick themselves out, they can, but that doesn’t mean there is no discipline triggered due to the act.

Nor does it mean because there is discipline, there must be coercion.

Take care,

Mike

 

[ericc]

ericc: here are just some of the canons of Trent, the first five of those on baptism:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that the baptism of Christ has a different force from the baptism of John; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that natural water is necessary for baptism, and that the words of Christ in this regard are not a metaphor; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON III.-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; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that the Roman church has the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that a baptism, even by a heretic, if trinitarian and intending to do what the church intends, is true baptism; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Your reading is that this canon does not assert that baptism is necessary for salvation; it asserts that no (unauthorised) person should make a statement on doctrine.

And so on through canon after canon after canon. I think your interpretation is wrong, indeed is unreasonable considering the genre of the Trent canons.

I know it is very tempting to group things together, but one would be committing the grossest error if someone is facing capital punishment and proclaiming guilt based upon groupings of similar readings may cause someone his life and not upon direct non-ambiguous reading of the law but inference.

Secondly, you may notice that #14 is different from the others. The other canons provide for penalties for direct violation of doctrines. #14 deals with people who attempts to create “legislation” for vow breakers i.e. they are to be left to their own will, not to be compelled, prescribing exclusion of sacraments and such other terms and conditions. #14 doesn’t even provide language that anathematizes vow breakers. (The language use the singular to anathematize the “anyone” i.e. the pseudo legislator and not the “they-children” plural vow breakers. ) Our differing viewpoints really hinge on this distinction.

Hence, your attempts to group #14 with the rest is faulty.

 

[ericc]

It’s too bad, Eric, that you weren’t at Trent to tell them all they need to write is that no unauthorized person may say anything about doctrine. It would have saved a lot of time.

I’d think it was understood that unauthorized persons have no business prescribing church doctrines and legislation to lay people. But as things turned out, unwritten understanding need to be written down to give the effect of seriousness and legitimacy. Many of the doctrines in Trent were unwritten previously and supposedly understood by all through historical understanding of Church Fathers and those that came before them. Undocumented understandings of doctrines i.e. Traditions eventually ended up written to cast them in stone so to speak. Happened to the Jews too. Oral became written.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I know it is very tempting to group things together, but one would be committing the grossest error if someone is facing capital punishment and proclaiming guilt based upon groupings of similar readings may cause someone his life and not upon direct non-ambiguous reading of the law but inference.

Secondly, you may notice that #14 is different from the others. The other canons provide for penalties for direct violation of doctrines. #14 deals with people who attempts to create “legislation” for vow breakers i.e. they are to be left to their own will, not to be compelled, prescribing exclusion of sacraments and such other terms and conditions. #14 doesn’t even provide language that anathematizes vow breakers. (The language use the singular to anathematize the “anyone” i.e. the pseudo legislator and not the “they-children” plural vow breakers. ) Our differing viewpoints really hinge on this distinction.

Hence, your attempts to group #14 with the rest is faulty.

1. No, they are grouped together by the Council.
2. No, they all follow the same form. Anyone who asserts the contrary of the statement enclosed within the customary frame is anathema.

Really, ericc, you are nothing if not persistent, but by now, surely, you have seen the problem in your reasoning, Any textual analysis must take account of the genre…

 

[ericc]

1. No, they are grouped together by the Council.

Topic wise, yes.

1. No, they all follow the same form. Anyone who asserts the contrary of the statement enclosed within the customary frame is anathema.

Really, ericc, you are nothing if not persistent, but by now, surely, you have seen the problem in your reasoning,

And you are equally persistent too!

My persistence reflects what I read in the text, no extrapolations, no conjectures. No crutches to support my case. Sorry to disappoint you Picky, but I really do not see any problem with my reasoning. LOL! The words are factual and you already admitted that those words could convey the reading that I have adopted. There is no compulsion to take a coercive reading of the words which you have also admitted. You are relying on circumstantial evidence to bolster your case, that is unfortunate.

Any textual analysis must take account of the genre…

Not in law. We are dealing with canon law after all.

But I think we have stood our grounds firmly so shall we call it an impasse? I can’t squeeze more meaning than what the words do say and I can’t agree with you on what you extrapolated.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Topic wise, yes.

And you are equally persistent too!

My persistence reflects what I read in the text, no extrapolations, no conjectures. No crutches to support my case.

Not in law. We are dealing with canon law after all.

But I think we have stood our grounds firmly so shall we call it an impasse? I can’t squeeze more meaning than what the words do say and I can’t agree with you on what you extrapolated.

An honourable impasse it is.

Picky

 

[ffg]

A point of confusion for me in this thread, is the specificity of ‘Catholic Church and Coercion’ with an opening from a non-Catholic Christian.

As basic as you can get about Christianity is teaching of the loving relationship of God for His creation. (Love doesn’t force, creation is not forced to know / love God)

Trying to understand specific writings and teachings of the CC outside of basic foundational points of Christianity, can lead to a conclusion that requires correction.

When analyzing, we have to ask how this writing fits into Christianity. If we can anchor it, we can analyze without letting our analysis float away.

 

[Ignatius]

Trying to understand specific writings and teachings of the CC outside of basic foundational points of Christianity, can lead to a conclusion that requires correction.

When analyzing, we have to ask how this writing fits into Christianity. If we can anchor it, we can analyze without letting our analysis float away.

Yes, it is completely irrational to attempt to read into it a frame of reference contrary to the point of view of those who wrote it. Such an approach will inevitably lead to false interpretations which in turn will lead to false conclusions.

 

[benhur]

The canon didn’t encourage vow breaking, it was to discourage supporters from making doctrinal statements/punishments/conditions on vow breakers.

HI ericc

of course canon did not support vow breakers, nor does anything suggest that anyone support vow breakers. Still not sure what you mean by "supporters’’. of vow breakers?.Again no one does that (supports vow breakers). I get what you mean though that the canon discourages (anathemizes) anyone setting condition of repentance from vow breaking before granting ability to receive sacraments again.

No you can’t stop free will to avoid anathematizing. If one commit abortion, that can get you excommed. If one were to encourage another to get an abortion, that is not ok.

Do not get this. How does one encourage abortion ? Following canon wording, it is wrong to excommunicate the person getting the abortion.

 

[benhur]

Then, the Council told Erasmus… "Hey, Erasmus… and anyone else that agrees with him… No one should ever ask anyone to ratify their Baptismal vows, again!!! They’re already Baptized!! It doesn’t matter if they were only babies when their Godparents took the vows for them. That’s why we asked them to renew their vows at their Confirmation!!!
​

Hi T
Was Erasmus ignorant of the sacrament of Confirmation. ? Did he see differences between “ratify” and “confirm” or “renew” ?​

 

[benhur]

Consider, if the Christian story is true, Eve and Adam kicked themselves out of Eden through disobedience. God didn’t force them back in.

HI ffg

Did Adam kick himself out, or did God lead them out and place “guards” to stop re-entry ?

I see a similarity in the current example. If someone wants to kick themselves out, they can, but that doesn’t mean there is no discipline triggered due to the act.

Right, just that the canon anathemizes the triggered discipline.

Nor does it mean because there is discipline, there must be coercion.

Actually what you might be saying is that because a certain discipline is anathemized does not mean there is a “better” discipline that will not be anathemized. The context of the canon and of the times however suggest that there is “better” discipline, and that more severe, or stronger punishment than what is anathemized.

Blessings

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hi T
Was Erasmus ignorant of the sacrament of Confirmation. ? Did he see differences between “ratify” and “confirm” or “renew” ?

Confirmation/Chrismation has very little to do with adult renewal:americancatholicpress.org/Bishops_Committee_Confirmation.html

There was never any set age - in the East it was administered immediately following baptism no matter the age, in the West it varies between baptism and seven. The latter ages like waiting until 13 are exceptions to the universal Tradition and are meant to be corrected according to Vatican 2 and prior Synods on the matter.

 

[benhur]

Confirmation/Chrismation has very little to do with adult renewal:americancatholicpress.org/Bishops_Committee_Confirmation.html

There was never any set age - in the East it was administered immediately following baptism no matter the age, in the West it varies between baptism and seven. The latter ages like waiting until 13 are exceptions to the universal Tradition and are meant to be corrected according to Vatican 2 and prior Synods on the matter.

Thank you . I feel sometimes the issue is addressed from both sides of mouth. I read the article saying it is not deciding for or againts the church yet it is still a continuance of initiatory rites and one must be capable to renew baptismal vows.