B
benhur
Guest
Back to work, and just after such a nice accolade.
The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Hi PS
Barring from sacraments in canon 14 is anathemized. Barring is wrong in the canon.
.Again, canon 14 says the excommunication, until repentance, is wrong.
Blessings
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I contributed a few posts on this thread, could not explain it in any other way, and so backed out.“Anathema” (Major Excomunication)
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful.
Yeah exactly, they are formerly excluded from the sacraments of the church! What do you think should happen? They should be allowed to take communion when they have chosen not to be Christian anymore. My Sister formerly left the Church, she is no longer able to receive any of the Sacraments. She is still Christian by virtue of baptism and confirmation. I pray for her always to come back to the church but she is not coerced in any way. If she decided on her own to come back all she would have to do is go to confession and resume her Catholic life.
If a woman has an abortion she is automatically excommunicated. Preist have been given the faculities in our diocese to forgive this sin which allows the woman back into the fold.
Coercion nay, just common sense!
Non-Catholic posters reading of this canon is that, in answering your question, beside being excommunicated, that is, prohibition of receiving the Sacrament (except Penance) and lost of privilege of properties and remuneration (if he was working or connected to the church in some way), that person should punished (the form of such punishment then was by burning on the stake) as to compel him to Christian life. Take into account that the wording of the said canon is in double negative.
There was problem in understanding the term excommunication - which basically means to remain Catholic and still obligated to attend Mass, but they are deprived of all sacraments (except Penance).
I didn’t follow up on this thread, now it has gone so big but hopefully Catholic excommunication is well understood that an excommunicated Catholic is still obligated to attend mass and live a Christian life.
Reuben
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Good post and thanks for the effort. Refer the highlighted part.
Not me though. Certainly not the past few Popes. JPII was on record in apologizing for past misdeed of Catholics Church.
I would readily admit to the Canon of Trent if it really teaches so. It didn’t from my understanding. This is of course not denying that many church officials did the things that we do not like today, especially if they also held government positions. Of course it goes without saying that doing something abominable and official teaching are two different things.
The difficult and antiquated wording of the canon did not help either for easy understanding. Wish those bishops would just be blunt and used short sentences, we would not be arguing much today. I mean Catholics and non-Catholics. The latter have the slight benefit of having Catholic background. The Church teachings are more familiar to them for them to assent to.
Reuben
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
-]/-]
It has to noted that nobody here ever said the penalties had to be burning at the stake. Canon 3 of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council lays out in some detail the penalties for heretics and those who give them any protection, so I think that may give some idea of past penalties that the CC considered “necessary and salutary coercion”, but this canon itself doesn’t specify what the penalties may be.
Thomas Pink and John Lamont both say this canon of Trent is a dogmatic canon (Pink) and de fide (Lamont). Hmmm…
Hi Reuben—
It has to noted that nobody here ever said the penalties had to be burning at the stake. Canon 3 of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council lays out in some detail the penalties for heretics and those who give them any protection, so I think that may give some idea of past penalties that the CC considered “necessary and salutary coercion”, but this canon itself doesn’t specify what the penalties may be.
Thomas Pink and John Lamont both say this canon of Trent is a dogmatic canon (Pink) and de fide (Lamont). Hmmm…
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It was mentioned then, probably buried somewhere in the thread. But thanks for the clarification.
So canon 14 on Baptism in your understanding that besides excommunication, another punishment was meted also, not burning on stake though.
I guess that answer the poster’s question that I was replying to.
Reuben
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi Abide. Do you know the detail of those penalties or could you just give me a link. Granted that the canon (Trent) did not specify the penalties or whether the person should fall under the penalties of Canon 3 of the Twelfth Ecumenical Council which deal mainly on schism.
Thanks.
Reuben
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Good morning, Reuben. Here’s a link: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm It gives the Constitutions/Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council which was also known as the Twelfth Ecumenical Council, and you can click right on the numbered canon you want—in this case, it’s number 3, on heretics. The adults in Trent’s canon 14 who did not want to ratify their infant baptism would be apostates (if they rejected all Christian doctrine) or heretics (if they rejected any part of Christian doctrine).
While on that link, you can go down to canon 70, which dealt with Jews who, once baptized, still wanted to retain some part of their Jewish practice (which is something that the CC does allow today, for Hebrew Catholics, but did not allow throughout the great majority of Christian history). This council ruled in canon 70 that the retention of any Jewish practice was theologically not permissable, so the Jewish converts were subjected to “necessary and salutary coercion” to compel them into a clean break with their Jewish upbringing.
I think, therefore, one possible scenario for who might refuse to ratify their infant baptism would be any offspring of a first generation, adult baptized, Jewish convert who were baptized as infants; some of those, once grown up, might conceivably want to return to Judaism. Today, I think the CC would let those people leave Catholicism without any penalty other than exclusion from the Sacraments. But in earlier times this freedom to leave and return to another religion would not have been available without paying a high price for it.
You’re right that burning on the stake was mentioned, but only as one known penalty–the most extreme one. The stated goal in canon 14 was to compel the baptized into a Christian life, so lesser means would certainly have been used first towards that end, with pressure only being stepped up to a higher, more uncomfortable level if and when it was deemed necessary. What I meant was that no one said burning at the stake was the only penalty that could be meant.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi Abide. Thank you very much. It helps.
Let me say that my position on the canon 14 on Baptism of Council of Trent is the same as yours that (1) heretic who rejected the Church doctrine and (2) adults who refuse to ratify their baptismal vow (apostate). I think I said something to that effect in my posts in the early part of this thread. That makes me of course differs with the interpretation of some of my Catholic colleagues here.
On reading the Fourth Lateran Council, I agree that there are other penalties beside the excommunication, which I said off-handedly as a personal opinion in my post #540 “beside being excommunicated, that is, prohibition of receiving the Sacrament (except Penance) and loss of privilege of properties and remuneration (if he was working or connected to the church in some way)”. That seems to be a correct assessment when compared with the canon.
Perhaps it is useful to note that in both councils (Trent and Fourth Lateran), those penalties were not stated but rather “the condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment.”
Important from this is that the canon does not prescribe punishment other than religious, that is excommunication or maybe some form of penance which what many Catholic posters were saying. Other forms of punishment were done by the secular authority.
Of course one can argue that it was still the same since the clergies might hold secular positions or that the Church had strong influence on the government. Nevertheless, the canons themselves do not prescribe secular punishment.
In the earlier thread, a poster suggested that burning on stake and shaming the accused through the street as the penalties. Obviously none of that was stated in the canon. I did not continue however as the tone of the discussion became condescending and in no way one can get fruitful discussion in that circumstance.
In my view, the action on heretics by the Church was consistent on what being done today, that is anathematization or excommunication which is not a bad thing altogether as the goal is to bring them back to the right belief through repentance. Since church is separated from state, there is of course no more secular punishment
God bless.
Reuben
P
ProdigalSun
Guest
Yes I have not read the whole thread, It is way to big now. I see where they get there erroneous assumptions from. It’s funny to think that BNB could of almost brought down the whole church with that smokin’ gun of his… WHew close one!!!:tiphat:
I
ichabode
Guest
I think out of all problems with your post is that you have an misunderstanding what anathema means, and what was meant by not to compel them by penalties.
Anathema does not mean forever you should know that because right before it states they are able to repent. It does not mean banishment as they are excluded from the sacraments that would require them to be in a state of sanctifying grace to receive. The sacrament of confession for example is not excluded, and they are not cast out “banished” as they are to be allowed to attend Church.
The penalties is not related to catechizing or instruction. it is related to encourage the faithful not to impose civil penalties or to treat the sinner as a pariah aka a spiritual leper.
Your entire post has many issues like your ego. The idea that no one knows or has read the council of trent is laughable.
B
bjryman
Guest
Behind all these posts is one factor driving all the Church teachings up until, really, Vatican II. Since Constantine ordered that the Christian Religion was to be the official State Religion, that very fact pulled State and Church together.
Over time, there was little difference between the two. One can see by some of the language from Trent and afterward that there is what we in US would note an unnatural alliance. At its worst, a member of the Faithful would be condemned by a local Bishop, Tribunal, etc, with the local State officials being present. The State officials would then implement essentially secular punishments that were agreed to by Church
I encourge posters here to read the excellent series of books on the history of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, especially where the actions of the various Popes, Emperors etc are depicted over hundreds of years…quite instructive
Today’s Christians struggle to understand how a follower of Christ, and a person of leadership in Church could ever condone many of the corporal punishments, and outright purges implemented.
The issue of Baptism “Confirmation” is just one example. This entire subject should be purely spiritual, and personal between person and local church pastor. One of the finest outcomes of Vatican II, in my humble opinion was to change the whole tone of the Church from anathema to positive teaching. The word anathema did not appear in any Vatican II documents. Additionally, the vast majority of the Vatican II writings are positive in nature and nuturing.
I have a 15 year grand daughter that was in a terrible auto accident that required six surgeries and she still suffers from a bit ot TBI. She finsihed RCIC and was schedlued for Confirmation last fall. It became obvious that this teen was not ready for the commitment. It was agreed to pull her from the final rite and keep working with her. In the meantime, she is not denied Communion. I can tell you will great confidence, that the Church would lose her as a member if the implemented the oppressive methods noted in Trent as reported by posters her.
Those clinging to the history from Trent to Vatican I are clinging to a Church that became far to intermixed with Ceasar, far too negative, and rigid…much like the Roman Empire into which it was assimilated.
Slowly, the Church is dealing with this wrong turn without losing the correct and positive traditional teachings that evolved during that era.
I believe that “school is not out yet” regarding the final updated tone of the Roman Rite Catholic Church. For sure, concentrating on the positives as noted by Pope Francis sets us all back to the core of our Faith and gives us all something to focus on while all the rest is being worked on by the Fathers of the Church
I pray for them every day.
B
benhur
Guest
What is related to not encouraging civil penalties ?
Wow, do not hold back. No, it is that many today deny what it almost plainly says. It may be also you misunderstand if you think church was encouraging not to impose civil penalties but I would await your answer to above question and for now only say "if’.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Pretty good post. Seems very fair.
I was shocked and saddened that the very first council since Jerusalem the poor bishops succumbed to the temptation of the first anathemas with civil penalties. Just as persecution finally ended from the Roman empire, the church and the Empire turns around and persecutes divisive teaching (Arianism) at the Nicea Council (325). Thus the tone was set all the way up to Trent and beyond.
Still not sure Vat 2 totally does away with the theology/reasoning behind penalties though it tries. firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion deals with this.
But I like your honest look at history. As CS Lewis sated , “those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”, paraphrase.
Blessings
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
I’ll give my dufflepudian
to that, as I think it seem pretty fair, too. (Maybe this little blue Monomanus Megadigit fellow is the result of a Dufflepud+Smurf marriage?)So far I just skimmed the FT article, but it looks like an abbreviated version of Pink’s essay–good find. Please, dear Catholic friends, read it for one Catholic perspective, along with John Lamont’s essay at Academia.edu.
T
Telstar
Guest
I posted this in another thread about this subject, but I probably should have posted it here, first.
In many non-Catholic Christian churches, at least in those which are independent and self-governing, much of their membership is only comprised of a minister and the regular members of their independent congregation. I don’t think they have a lot of rules about how they might handle the issue of fidelity among their members. It seems to me that they probably just come and go on a regular basis, because many people tend to go wherever they find a church that they like. I do realize that there are others that have some more formal structure (Lutherans, etc.), so I would think they might be more understanding of the need for certain regulations, common to all churches under their organization.
But, even those who have a common structure of law among their many member churches, when they look at the Canon Laws of the Catholic Church, they still tend to only look at them being applied to the general congregation. They don’t have the same kind of hierarchical structure, and don’t understand the concept of Priests and Religious who take life-long vows (such as obedience, poverty, chastity, etc.), which may make a huge difference in how any Canon Law would apply to them.
Some penalties that the Church might apply are specifically targeted at different members, according to their personal position in the Church. Whether they are clergy, extraordinary ministers, members of a religious order, or just a regular member of the laity, their position or office will determine which penalties are appropriate for the offense, and how those penalties are applied. Some members might only be required to perform simple acts of penance, while others might be subject to a formal excommunication. In the case of a Priest, not only might it include their loss of participation in the sacraments, but also their ability to perform the sacraments, as well as a loss of residence and of pay. It’s a much more complicated issue than most people might think it would be.
So, many of the concerns voiced (and accusations made) by people on the outside, about what kinds of “coercion” the Catholic Church might try to use against anyone wanting to leave the Church, are mostly due to a misunderstanding of Canon Law, or possibly the result of over active imaginations. Especially among those who keep looking at what took place over 500 years ago, when there was an entirely different kind of political structure in place, that blurred the lines between civil law and Canon Law. Those kinds of situations no longer exist in the modern world.
I certainly understand that it’s a good thing to always remember what happened, so it can never happen again. But, I also think it’s time to set those sad memories aside and try to look forward to a brighter future, instead of living in the dark shadows of an unfortunate past.
One thing that I think many of us forget (myself included) when we see references to the Church’s right to use “coercion” in regards to Canon Law, is that these canons do not just apply to the laity (the ordinary members sitting in the pews), but they also apply to members of the clergy and religious orders (nuns, monks, etc.). This is a situation that calls for a much more complex application of those laws.Telstar said:
In many non-Catholic Christian churches, at least in those which are independent and self-governing, much of their membership is only comprised of a minister and the regular members of their independent congregation. I don’t think they have a lot of rules about how they might handle the issue of fidelity among their members. It seems to me that they probably just come and go on a regular basis, because many people tend to go wherever they find a church that they like. I do realize that there are others that have some more formal structure (Lutherans, etc.), so I would think they might be more understanding of the need for certain regulations, common to all churches under their organization.
But, even those who have a common structure of law among their many member churches, when they look at the Canon Laws of the Catholic Church, they still tend to only look at them being applied to the general congregation. They don’t have the same kind of hierarchical structure, and don’t understand the concept of Priests and Religious who take life-long vows (such as obedience, poverty, chastity, etc.), which may make a huge difference in how any Canon Law would apply to them.
Some penalties that the Church might apply are specifically targeted at different members, according to their personal position in the Church. Whether they are clergy, extraordinary ministers, members of a religious order, or just a regular member of the laity, their position or office will determine which penalties are appropriate for the offense, and how those penalties are applied. Some members might only be required to perform simple acts of penance, while others might be subject to a formal excommunication. In the case of a Priest, not only might it include their loss of participation in the sacraments, but also their ability to perform the sacraments, as well as a loss of residence and of pay. It’s a much more complicated issue than most people might think it would be.
So, many of the concerns voiced (and accusations made) by people on the outside, about what kinds of “coercion” the Catholic Church might try to use against anyone wanting to leave the Church, are mostly due to a misunderstanding of Canon Law, or possibly the result of over active imaginations. Especially among those who keep looking at what took place over 500 years ago, when there was an entirely different kind of political structure in place, that blurred the lines between civil law and Canon Law. Those kinds of situations no longer exist in the modern world.
I certainly understand that it’s a good thing to always remember what happened, so it can never happen again. But, I also think it’s time to set those sad memories aside and try to look forward to a brighter future, instead of living in the dark shadows of an unfortunate past.
V
Vico
Guest
The purpose of anathema is that the faithful will not be led into error by the scandal given.
It is important because the Magisterium has a obligation to the Church of Jesus Christ.
The canon law of 1917 has this:
Avoiding certain people who are seen as a danger to the faith has been part of canon law, however there is no longer the canonical distinction between the excommunicates who are to be avoided and those who can be tolerated, rather the distinction now is between imposed and declared excommunication.
Canon Law (CIC) Can. 2267 of 1917:“The faithful must avoid association in profane things with a banned excommunicate, unless it concerns a spouse, parents, children, householders, subjects, and so on, unless reasonable cause excuses.”
There were many exceptions, such as a priest could offer Mass for the conversion of such people. This canon was eliminated with the revision of the law in 1983.
You use the phrase “compelling them to stay” so I assume you mean compelling them to stay in communion which means* to repent – to give assent to the teaching** of the Church***.
Yes, it did occur to me and I have considered actions. A good example is not assisting in the invalid attempt of matrimony by a Catholic (e.g. a civil marriage or without approval of the Catholic Church, or a second marriage while the spouse remains living.). We also show our disapproval by not voting in favor of contraception, abortion, homosexual union, and through speaking against these things. The Catholic Church also has various penalties for the clergy and religious that may be imposed. (One example to consider is violation of the seal of confession.) For the laity there is also the case of abortion which carries a penalty.
One baptized has an indelible mark. As such they are always members of the Church of Christ, even though it is possible to not be in a state of grace. Since we cannot judge the interior state we do not know if a person is damned or not. We can not judge the interior state, but we can identify the objective actions and which may give scandal. Objective sin arises from ignorance, passion, or malice.
The following meaning of **scandal **is from Modern Catholic Dictionary:Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)
Catechism of the Catholic Church****2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (*GS *27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I shall try to answer the questions in the OP and this is strictly a personal opinion.
Anathema is a formal excommunication from the Church of a heretic who holds a doctrine differing from the Church - nothing more and nothing less.
Excommunication is often misunderstood; even though it is a biblical doctrine (1 Corinthians 5), Paul using language evocative of anathema (“deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”, v. 5). Remove one who is unrepentant in sin or incorrigibly teaching error from one’s church body.
It is not a pronouncement of eternal damnation, but a disciplinary measure designed to motivate the sinner to repentance and reconciliation.
The full verse reads, “Deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The goal of excommunication is not damnation, but salvation.
The Church does not give up in bringing a heretic back to salvation. Salvation to a person is important to the Church.
The Church continues to uphold this principle today. A person who ceases to believe will be excommunicated – he is still a Catholic by virtue of his Baptism but he is not to receive the Sacraments except for the Sacrament of Confession, and when he does, he will be received back to the Church.
Yes, but what I can do as an individual Catholic is to include him in my prayer so that he repents and returns home. My desires would be to see him to be able again to receive the Lord’s Body in the Eucharist for the nourishment of his soul which it needs desperately.
Of course, yes, as mentioned. Excommunication is not a final verdict. The accused has every chance to be accepted back to the Church when he has a change of heart and repent.
The Church and I, of course, cannot enforce civil penalties, because we are not civil/secular authority, the body that the canon stated which is responsible to carry out the penalty. Secular authority does not enforce penalty on religious crime anymore which is not appropriate in the modern society.
The penalty is excommunication which I agree that should be imposed.
As for civil penalties like loss of properties, this does not apply anymore as the Church does not control this. But if the accused is a clergy or church staff, he will be dismissed and his pay will be terminated.
The question is: what is the purpose of this thread? Catholics accept bad patches of their history. The consolation, if there is, is that the Church does not impose civil penalties and the canon was careful and clearly said so. The only penalty which she imposed was religious, that is excommunication.
Then again the status of the Church was quite different then than it is now, in that many of the faithful depended their livelihood working or having properties which she controlled. It is natural in that situation and applies too today, that an apostate Catholic surely cannot expect to derive benefit from the Church anymore. And that she has the prerogative to dismiss him.
God bless
Reuben
B
benhur
Guest
Hi T
OK . I think we have had have clergy or officers in mind , especially way back when as in keeping reformers in mind, not to mention specifically Erasmus. But yes, good to remember
T, I had to laugh at this one. I know we are just “talking” (thankfully), but out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Not sure many would like the “just” and might wonder if going to a church that they *like *is superficial ? It is a big knock by some on some P’s . Just that I could ask why is it that they like it. And do many Catholics go to a parish they do not like ? Do Catholics not also “come and go” on a regular basis ?
Sorry for being picky(not the poster) and i know your context is “sturcture”. I will say that sometimes the best structure is no structure,as in the power of nothing, except the bare rudiments of the essence of the love of Christ and His body. Can you imagine if the earth spun on a mechanical structure that could wear out instead of on seemingly nothing ?
First , we have not separated the canon from time . I thought we discussed it in its contextual time. Yes we have also discussed if it is still in the books, and we have discussed the attitude and practice change and sentiments of all of us today. The site I posted a few posts back discuss the “today”. No imagination needed
See, so we were not imagining things.
Amen.
Blessings T
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I read the first page, but yeeks there are 10 more. My understanding of Trent is that it can be understood to be just referring to young children and their parents. Does anyone have an argument otherwise?
- Status