The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2

[Telstar]

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.

I’m really not the one who insists on splitting it up. People on the other side of the fence keep looking at parts of it individually, as if they were different subjects. They mostly want to focus on the punishments and penalties, that are only conditional on a “refusal”. Then, they expect Catholics to explain what that part means, as if it stood on its own. I’m the one that kept trying to remind people that the two main parts (that they want to divide) are brought together as one issue by the conjunction “and”, even before anyone actually found the statement made by Erasmus, which the canon seems to deal with, specifically.

If the part about asking a person to ratify their vows is heretical, then the part that deals with his punishment if he “refuses” has no teeth. It can only occur if someone asks them to ratify their vows, first. Since no one is allowed to even ask them, then that person is completely innocent. You shouldn’t expect them to give any answer, to a question they were never asked. So, why would anyone ever expect the Church to punish them? Why do people in this thread insist that there has to be some other reason for the Church to want to punish someone, when they know it was Erasmus that suggested those penalties?

The only reason the Council included that section in the canon, is because Erasmus had no authority to propose any such punishments. The Council was reminding everyone (not just Erasmus), that no one should ever make public statements that call a Sacrament into question like his did, or to make suggestions about what actions the Church should take in dealing with situations like he was proposing. It was not his responsibility to do anything like that. With the volatile situation at that period in history, his decision to make statements like that did a lot of damage before the Council ever got the chance to rule against it. The errors that he promoted were already spread far and wide by the time the Council was finally convened.

This canon is listed in the section that only deals with the Sacrament of Baptism. The Council condemned what Erasmus proposed in that particular quote, because it fosters doubt regarding the permanent effects of that Catholic Sacrament, specifically regarding infants. It also ignores the fact that the Sacrament of Confirmation already provides for the renewal of Baptismal vows, when a child reaches the age of reason. The Council was defending Baptism from those who wanted a change to be made, which would call into question the efficacy of the Sacrament. It’s practice goes all the way back to the time of the Apostles. Since it would put the souls of infants in grave danger, especially if they died before being Baptized, the Church would never think of postponing it until they were older. The benefits of it far outweigh any objections that could be made against it.

Finally, this canon is not addressing people that wish to leave the Church. It has no actual connection to it, except in the minds of those who wish to draw their own conclusions due to the time period. If it was connected, the Council would have stated it, specifically. It didn’t. It also would not have been listed in this particular section of the documents, which only pertains to issues about Baptism.

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

It’s OK… the wall is red, anyway.

 

[benhur]

If the part about asking a person to ratify their vows is heretical,

Not sure one can assume that is the main question the way the canon is worded. It definitely does not say “he who asks another to ratify their baptismal vows, let him be anathema”.

then the part that deals with his punishment if he “refuses” has no teeth.

But as has been pointed out you are making disjoining “parts” so it is difficult to say this is the main part and all else is secondary even moot.

Since no one is allowed to even ask them, then that person is completely innocent.

Again, if it so clear then why continue with other moot parts, unless indeed they are addressing a package proposal like some say about Erasmus.

The only reason the Council included that section in the canon, is because Erasmus had no authority to propose any such punishments

. Maybe. Thanks. Will wait to see more knowledgeable folk than myself to rebut if possible, and maybe it has already been done. T

 

[ericc]

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.

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

By “supporters” I meant those saying it is alright for vow breakers to do what they intend to do, just leave them be and meanwhile here is a list of things these vow breakers can or can not do subject to condition. The canon specifically prohibit these people from making such proclamations. Ok may be supporters may not be a good choice of word. How about “Pro-choice”? Or may be another word to better describe this particular group. I don’t have a better word at the top of my head at the moment except pro-choice or just call them Group A. It doesn’t matter really. Just a group of people who advocate or support such policy.

Abortion is wrong and is against Church doctrines. “Supporters” of those abortion getters would include those who say it is alright for these abortion getters to do what they want with their bodies, or those who indirectly assist in actions or words to facilitate these people getting an abortion. The abortion example was merely to show similarity of “pro-choicers” in both camps. It does not get into which canon applies to abortion supporters.

How does one encourage abortion? By giving advice advocating that it is the right of the mother to decide whether the baby lives or dies, that it is of terrible inconvenience to the mother’s future endeavors, that it is embarrassing to the family name to have a bastard in the family, by providing assistance (time, money, resources, counsel) to facilitate procuring the abortion etc. Name it and 1000 possible responses can be obtained from pro-choicers.

But I really don’t want to get into the abortion topic on this thread. Perhaps I should have refrain from quoting unclear examples. Instead of clarifying the canon issue, I get diverted clarifying the example. Bad move on my part. Mistake.

 

[ffg]

HI ffg

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

Thanks Benhur for the response. Honestly, when I first read this line, I thought it was a joke. In the event you are serious here, I’m simply coming from a cause - effect (sin - discipline for sin) POV.

Thus, Adam and Eve’s actions did the job. Though I’m sure the drama would have made a great movie.

Right, just that the canon anathemizes the triggered discipline.

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

To say ‘anathematizes the triggered discipline’ seems circular. Perhaps I need some clarification on your intent. Or need to learn a different definition of Anathema (curse, excommunicate).

Excommunication does link to a ‘cause - effect’ relationship of sin and discipline for sin.

For the end point - Picky re-presented the case and asked a question in post 396: 

"we're dealing here with an adult, baptized 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?"

I meant what I wrote 'Surely not...'

Not least because in Christianity, which is sourced by the greatest act of love, it is impossible to act Christian and act counter to love by forcing that which requires a loving response.

Take care,

Mike

 

[benhur]

]By “supporters” I meant those saying it is alright for vow breakers to do what they intend to do, just leave them be and meanwhile here is a list of things these vow breakers can or can not do subject to condition.

You are back to it . Who says it is alright ? and the “just” in" just leave them alone", as opposed to what again (the smoking gun) ? Again, how do you stop someone from breaking a christian baptismal vow that is not anathema ? Apparently excommunication is not the answer, so what is then ?

How about “Pro-choice”?

Thanks for trying to clarify but I would say punishing an abortion is not Pro choice, just as excommunicating baptismal vow breakers is not anti baptism or anti vow keeping.

But I really don’t want to get into the abortion topic on this thread. Perhaps I should have refrain from quoting unclear examples.

No we are doing alright. it is a good attempt.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Thanks Benhur for the response. Honestly, when I first read this line, I thought it was a joke. In the event you are serious here, I’m simply coming from a cause - effect (sin - discipline for sin) POV.

Thus, Adam and Eve’s actions did the job. Though I’m sure the drama would have made a great movie.

Got it. I was reacting to the anathema on kicking out. Another words with canon logic God would be anathemized for “kicking out”. And hence thought you preferred to say Adam kicked himself out.

To say ‘anathematizes the triggered discipline’ seems circular. Perhaps I need some clarification on your intent. Or need to learn a different definition of Anathema (curse, excommunicate).

Excommunication does link to a ‘cause - effect’ relationship of sin and discipline for sin.

Do not think I was circular with the effect (punishment /excommunication as in no sacraments) being anathemized. But yes that would be circular but still cause and effect to say, “if you excommunicate someone for breaking baptismal vows you yourself are also excommunicated.”. Many think that is how canon 14 could be read.(if anathemizing is also excommunicating, which is also barring from sacraments)

> I meant what I wrote 'Surely not...'




Got it, and as you said , God did not force Adam back into the Garden


> Not least because in Christianity, which is sourced by the greatest act of love, it is impossible to act Christian and act counter to love by forcing that which requires a loving response.




yes,most here are in agreement in today's context. However  what was the context at Trent ? Do you think it is wrong to allow free will to leave church  and wrong then to bar from sacraments thereafter until repentance (believing again)? Again many here argue that is what Trent said but that it is not mainstream desire today.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Something here about Erasmus and coercion etc… books.google.com/books?id=Pd0qK5ORcfQC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=erasmus+and+trent+canon+14&source=bl&ots=BU-8M3kVAH&sig=gCMggQoIuR2VZ65s7ITcMSMbyt0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znhuVdOBCIjZtQWrhIGIBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=erasmus%20and%20trent%20canon%2014&f=false

 

[ericc]

You are back to it . Who says it is alright ? and the “just” in" just leave them alone", as opposed to what again (the smoking gun) ?

I’ll refrain from using words like supporters or pro-choicers. The canon was targeted against those who say to leave vow breakers to their own will. That translate to me as leave them alone to do what they want. It is not a far stretch to suggest those saying those words are advocating this policy otherwise why say it in the first place? And if they are advocating this policy , it is not unreasonable to suggest that the policy is “alright” to them? If you want to spend time criticizing my poor choice of words, you may but it won’t make any progress as far as understanding the canon itself. I’d rather you dissect the canon language to bits and pieces to tease out its intended meaning in detail.

Again, how do you stop someone from breaking a christian baptismal vow that is not anathema ? Apparently excommunication is not the answer, so what is then ?

How? The Church decide using its own language what she think is necessary to regulate its members. Whether excommunication is the right answer or not is not for Protestants nor myself to tell what the Church is to do, how to word the canons, how to select the right “answer” to members who decide not to follow Church rules. That is not my place nor the place of people with non-vested interests. The CC has its own method and as a Catholic, I will submit to the Church “answers”. Mat 18:17 didn’t give very much detail whether the answer is effective or not either but I don’t hear much dissent on that verse.

As it is I do not question other churches right to regulate their own members, choose the words to word their rules and regulations or whether their answers are effective or not. But that is straying from the OP’s contention who apparently has absent him/herself from all these wonderful discussions. It would be a pity for that person to miss all these banter and to receive direct responses to his allegations.

Thanks for trying to clarify but I would say punishing an abortion is not Pro choice, just as excommunicating baptismal vow breakers is not anti baptism or anti vow keeping.
No we are doing alright. it is a good attempt.

As I wrote in the prior post, I think I’ll stop further comments on abortion and save that for another thread, if there is one.

Peace, bro.

 

[benhur]

And if they are advocating this policy , it is not unreasonable to suggest that the policy is “alright” to them?

OK.Of course the policy of barring from sacraments vow breakers was "alright’ to some but not to others hence the anathema.

If you want to spend time criticizing my poor choice of words, you may but it won’t make any progress as far as understanding the canon itself

Your choice of words is perfect and I think does reflect the sentiments of the canon writers, but also leads some to make the allegation of a smoking gun (coercion the bullet).

How? The Church decide using its own language what she think is necessary to regulate its members

Agree.The church was defending the right to use it’s methods of the past, on its own baptized members .

Whether excommunication is the right answer or not is not for Protestants nor myself to tell what the Church is to do,

Correct and the contention is that excommunication is not enough, that it should extend beyond the spiritual to the physical(corporal,monetary etc.)

The CC has its own method

Exactly and mere barring from sacraments and suggesting free will was not it with Trent.It still may be the sentiment even with vat 2

As it is I do not question other churches right to regulate their own members, choose the words to word their rules and regulations or whether their answers are effective or no

Yes that is the crux of the matter, the CC’s authority in the matter.Apparently Erasmus, though still as a Catholic, tried to suggest another path but his suggestion was anthemized (free will and barring from sacraments).

Peace, bro.

Thanks.You too.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Something here about Erasmus and coercion etc… books.google.com/books?id=Pd0qK5ORcfQC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=erasmus+and+trent+canon+14&source=bl&ots=BU-8M3kVAH&sig=gCMggQoIuR2VZ65s7ITcMSMbyt0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=znhuVdOBCIjZtQWrhIGIBQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=erasmus%20and%20trent%20canon%2014&f=false

Very good job, benhur—a discussion on the canon from experts speaking within their own fields of competence. We’ve had that from Contarini, as a historian, and also, I think, from Picky Picky, but they’ve also been blown off and even unreasonably accused of bias.

Folks, please take the time to read this link before continuing our discussion. For those who unfortunately feel they have to disregard (name removed by moderator)ut unless it’s from a Catholic, I know Robert P.George and John Finnis are Catholic; I think Keown and Pink are too, but I’m not sure.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Very good job, benhur—a discussion on the canon from experts speaking within their own fields of competence. We’ve had that from Contarini, as a historian, and also, I think, from Picky Picky, but they’ve also been blown off and even unreasonably accused of bias.

Folks, please take the time to read this link before continuing our discussion. For those who unfortunately feel they have to disregard (name removed by moderator)ut unless it’s from a Catholic, I know Robert P.George and John Finnis are Catholic; I think Keown and Pink are too, but I’m not sure.

Prof Keown is Catholic, or was last time I read anything by him.

Yep, the book is an excellent find for this discussion.

Contarini is most certainly speaking from expertise. I have an education in history and linguistics, but that’s as much as I can claim.

 

[GKC]

Prof Keown is Catholic, or was last time I read anything by him.

Yep, the book is an excellent find for this discussion.

Contarini is most certainly speaking from expertise. I have an education in history and linguistics, but that’s as much as I can claim.

Plus a pleasing board presence, to be sure.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Plus a pleasing board presence, to be sure.

And, even at this advanced age, a disconcerting tendency to blush.

 

[GKC]

And, even at this advanced age, a disconcerting tendency to blush.

I am likely as advanced, but who’s counting.

 

[Telstar]

I am likely as advanced, but who’s counting.

I’d refuse to answer, on the grounds that it might incriminate me…

and I probably have you both beat.

 

[GKC]

I’d refuse to answer, on the grounds that it might incriminate me…

and I probably have you both beat.

You older than the end of WWII?

If so, don’t answer that

 

[Telstar]

You older than the end of WWII?

If so, don’t answer that

Not quite. Hubby might qualify in that category, though. i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/oldman.gif

 

[GKC]

Not quite. Hubby might qualify in that category, though. i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/oldman.gif

I win.

 

[benhur]

Very good job, benhur—a discussion on the canon from experts speaking within their own fields of competence. We’ve had that from Contarini, as a historian, and also, I think, from Picky Picky, but they’ve also been blown off and even unreasonably accused of bias.

Folks, please take the time to read this link before continuing our discussion. For those who unfortunately feel they have to disregard (name removed by moderator)ut unless it’s from a Catholic, I know Robert P.George and John Finnis are Catholic; I think Keown and Pink are too, but I’m not sure.

Yes , what a gold mine. Thank you . Many of us here have been saying same thing, or trying to, is what amazes me more. After all, the canon is there for us to read in English, and we do know some history surrounding those Trent times. But yeah, pretty cool reading (500 pages ?). Stand our ground.
Blessings

 

[Picky_Picky]

Not quite. Hubby might qualify in that category, though. i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/oldman.gif

Ah, then I have you beat, too.