Loading ...
I recently read a little pamphlet, last published in 1993 by Angelus Press, entitled the Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion, a lecture by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. The translation from Italian was done by the Rev. Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. and first printed in 1953. Fr. Fahey explains the occasion of the lecture in the Translator’s Foreword:
On March 2, 1953, the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome celebrated the fourteenth anniversary of Pope Pius XII’s election to the Supreme Pontificate. . . . After the address of homage in Latin to His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, read by the Right Reverend Rector of the University, and the address of welcome in Italian to the distinguished gathering, delivered by the same, the Schola Cantorum of the Roman Seminary sang the Ave Maria of Da Vittoria. His Eminence, Cardinal Ottaviani, then gave his eagerly awaited lecture on “Church and State: Some Present-day Problems in the light of Pope Pius XII’s Teaching.” It is this Lecture, published later in pamplet form by the Pontifical Lateran University, which, by the kind permission of His Eminence, I now have the honor of presenting to readers of English. I am certain that in doing so I am rendering a great service to those who would otherwise be deprived of its luminous exposition of Catholic doctrine. . . .
Luminous exposition, indeed! and not, of course, the type of thing one is liable to read hot off the press of the Pontifical Lateran University today. From the opening paragraphs:
Today some maintain that there is in the Church only a spiritual order, and from that they draw the conclusion that the nature of the Church’s law is in contradiction with the nature of the Church herself. According to these people, the original sacramental element has grown continually weaker, giving way to the jurisdictional element, which is now the power of the Church.
According to these same people, the solution is to prune the Church of these malign accresences, namely the trappings of a State, until the Church once again is a society of mere charity as opposed to one both of charity and juridical constitution.
These people are the ones at whom Cardinal Ottaviani aims his speech - not those outside the Church - but members of the Church who think that the Church must adapt herself to the conditions of the time; for instance, one might say that in the new Europe, it is no longer expedient that Catholic confessional states exist. More strongly, even the principle that the Church ought not to be divorced and sundered from the State should be abandoned - so one might say. Cardinal Ottaviani:
To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine. . . .
Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the encyclicals as belonging to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages. For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that “care must be taken never to connive, in any way, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows.”
What false opinions are we conniving at today? Cardinal Ottaviani gives some examples: (1) The State, properly speaking, cannot accomplish an act of religion; (2) The State’s obligation to worship God can never enter the Constitutional sphere; (3) Even for a State composed of Catholics, there is no obligation to profess the Catholic religion. In contrast to these errors, Cardinal Ottaviani notes three principles which Catholics must uphold: (1) The social, and not merely private, profession of the religion of the people; (2) Legislation inspired by the full concept of membership in Christ; (3)The defence of the religious patrimony of the people against every assault aimed at depriving them of the treasure of their faith and religious peace.
Cardinal Ottaviani, in the presence of the reigning pontiff, quotes from Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei to drive home the message of the first principle:
Accordingly, as it is not lawful for any individual to neglect his duties to God and to the Religion according to which God wills to be honored, in the same way “states cannot without serious moral offense conduct themselves as if God were non-existent or cast off the care of religion as something foreign to themselves or of little moment.”
In previous writing on this blog about the Social Reign of Christ the King and about the duties of the State with respect to the Church, I have not infrequently wondered to what extent we can take the encyclicals of earlier pontiffs as guides for our present belief in these matters. Thus, I enjoyed Cardinal Ottaviani’s lecture especially because it fingers these questions as ones on which there is a permanent and abiding teaching of the Church:
These principles are firm and unchanging. They were valid in the days of Innocent III and Boniface VIII. They are valid in the days of Leo XIII and Pius XII, who has reaffirmed them in more than one of his documents. That is why, with unyielding firmness, he has also recalled Rulers to their duties, by appealing to the warning of the Holy Ghost, a warning whcih applies to all times. In the Encyclical Letter, Mystici Corporis, the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius XII, speaks as follows: “We must implore God that all those who rule over people may love wisdom, so that upon them may never fall that fearful judgment of the Holy Spirit. . . .
Referring back, then, to what I have said above concerning the agreement of the Encyclicals that have been called in question, I am certain that no one can prove that there has been any change whatever, in regard to these principles, between the Encyclical Letter, Summi Pontificatus of Pius XII, and the encyclicals of Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris against Communism, Mit brennender Sorge against Nazism, and Non abbiamo bisogno against the State-monopoly of Fascism, on the one hand; and the earlier encyclicals of Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, Libertas and Sapientiae Christianae, on the other.
A very important point to have established, I think, and one with which we can assess the current post-Vatican II teaching of prelates and Popes in respect to confessional States and States in general. In the lecture, much of Cardinal Ottaviani’s attention is directed at States which were still more or less Catholic - Spain, for instance. He wants to make sure that, whatever external pressures there may be, Catholics themselves in the relevant countries won’t undermine or seek to remove the State’s profession of the Catholic Faith.
But what is the situation of Catholics in America or in Mohammedan lands - anywhere, at any rate, where Catholics are not in the majority? Can Catholics expect any respect when, on the one hand, because the Catholic Faith is the true Faith, they demand that the State confess it (where this is practically feasible) and on the other, in lands where it is not feasible, Catholics demand toleration for themselves, toleration which they would not accord to others if the State were Catholic rather than Anglican, Muslim, Masonic, or what have you.
The objection is put to us: You maintain two different standards or norms of action according as it suits you. In a Catholic country, you uphold the doctrine of the Confessional State with the duty of exclusive protection for the Catholic religion. On the other hand, where you form a minority, you claim the right of toleration or straightway the equality of forms of worship. Hence for you there are two weights and two measures. The result is a really embarrassing duplicity from which the Catholics who take account of the actual developments of civilization wish to be delivered.
Well, quite frankly, two weights and two measures are to be employed, one for truth, the other for error. Men who feel themselves in secure possession of truth and justice are not going to compromise. They demand full respect for their rights. How can those, however, who do not feel themselves secure in the possession of the truth, claim to hold the field alone, without sharing it with the man who claims respect for his own rights on the basis of other principles?
The concept of the equality of forms of worship and of tolerance has resulted from the doctrine of private judgment and from confessional multiplicity. It is a logical consequence of those opinions according to which, in the field of religion, there is no place for dogmas and that the individual conscience is the sole criterion and exclusive norm for the profession of faith and the exercise of worship. Accordingly, in the countries in which such theories flourish is it any wonder that the Catholic Church seeks to be in a position to develop her divine mission and to obtain recognition for those rights which she can claim, as a logical consequence of the principles accepted by the Legislatures of these countries?
The Church would prefer to speak and to put forward her claims in the name of God. But amongst these peoples the exclusive nature of her mission is not recognized. She is content, therefore, to plead her case in the name of that tolerance, of that equality, and of those common guarantees which inspire the laws and the lawgiving of these countries.
Then, to illustrate his point about the disunity of protestants and other sectarians, he relates the following story. I love this story!
When, in 1949, there was held at Amsterdam a reunion of various heterodox bodies in view of furthering the ecumenical movement, there were represented in that assembly no fewer than 146 different Churches or Confessions. The delegates present belonged to about 50 nations. There were Calvinists, Lutherans, Copts, Old Catholics, Baptists, Waldenses, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Malabar Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.
The Catholic Church, knowing herself to be in firm possession of the truth and unity of Christ’s Mystical Body, could not, logically, take part in such an assembly with a view to seeking there that union which the others have not got.
Oh, really? That’s news to me, post-Vatican II Catholic that I am.
After lengthy discussions, the members of the assembly were not even in agreement for a final celebration in common of the Eucharistic Banquet, which was to be the symbol of their union, if not in faith, at least in charity. Such was the lack of unity that, in the plenary session of August 23, 1949, Dr. Kraemer, a Dutch Calvinist, who has since become the Director of the new ecumenical Institute of Celigny in Switzerland, remarked that it would have been preferable to omit the Eucharistic Banquet altogether rather than manifest so great a lack of unity by holding many separate celebrations.
In such conditions, I say, could one of these Confessions coexisting with the others, or even predominant, in one and the same State, adopt an intransigent attitude and claim for itself what the Catholic Church expects from a State in great majority Catholic?
He concludes that section: “It ought not, therefore, be a matter for wonder that the Church appeals to and demands recognition for the rights of man at least, when the rights of God are not acknowledged.”
But since the day of Cardinal Ottaviani, there is a new presence in Europe, one which has been around for a long time, but which only of late again threatens Europe. The Muslims, too, are quite confident that they possess the fullness of the truth; they believe that they have the last word on the revelation of God. When we know, for example, that a large percentage of British Muslims would like to live under sharia in Britain, it can’t be long before some of them are politically well-organized enough to start things down that road.
As a question of politics, the return of the Catholic confessional state really isn’t on the radar; but the principle of a confessional state, and of a confessional state in Europe, is certainly one which bears some thinking about.
For instance, maybe we can read Benedict’s support of secular democracy “guided by values” in light of the Mohammedan threat to Europe. Leave aside the principle of the thing for a moment, maybe Benedict is defending secular democracy not so much in opposition to previous centuries of papal teaching as in a way to ward off what may well be the future of Europe: a Eurabia, in which parts of the continent live under Islamic law. Thus, rather than being the view of a liberal, Benedict’s support of secularism could be seen as prescient, an attempt to take up the standard in defense of a Church which must soon live in States not likely to recongize its right to exist let alone its divine mission.
Of course, this reading of Benedict’s ideas doesn’t cover those countries in which a majority of the citizens are still very much Catholic. To be consistent with the teaching Cardinal Ottaviani outlined in his lecture before Pius XII, it seems that the Church today should be pushing for the establishment of Confessional States in at least all of those countries where the religious demographics make it at all feasible. Instead, the the policy seems to be one of encouraging tolerance for all religions. My knowledge of these matters, however, especially as regards the Latin American countries and South America is extremely limited, so I would be very interested to hear more particulars about the situation between the Church and State in these countries.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Nice post, Josephus.
The point about Islam is important, and I think much more thought needs to go into how Catholics should respond to this threat. There is understandably a temptation to join with the secularists in saying that an Islamic confessional state would be bad because a confessional state would be bad; that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to ‘impose their values’ on others because no-one should be allowed to do so, etc.. On the contrary, Catholics and Muslims agree (or should agree) that the laws of the state should reflect the truths of revealed religion, and should safeguard the spiritual, as well at the material, well-being of citizens.
Accordingly I view the attacks on Islam in the British context - which focus on their schools and public manifestations such a proposed ‘mega-mosque’ in London - with great unease. It has already happened that government moves to reign in Islamic schools have, in the name of even-handedness, undermined Catholic schools as well. As always, the shortcomings of a false religion provide ammunition for attacks on the true religion, and dealing with this situation require much more delicacy than is usually displayed.
Huzzah for this post! A confessional state is synonomous with despicable tyranny amongst NO American Catholics who think that Dignitatis Humanae comprises the entirety of Catholic Social Teaching.
Sir, I would like to comment on this but your post is too long.
Maybe someday I will read it. It probably is good. It looks good. But after previous dealings I prolly won’t agree completely with it.
John Boy, of course you wouldn’t agree with my post. It addresses and agrees with doctrine which the Novus Church has rejected. But while I have been critical of Pope Benedict on this point in the past, in writing up this summary of the pamplet, there did occur to me for the first time some positive way to read his actions and words, at least in connection with Europe, as I wrote in my post.
JS: thank you! I was reading about that mega-mosque in Mark Steyn’s America Alone; it sounds scary, frankly. Yet another way in which the Muslims will mark their presence in Great Britain, now with this huge and enduring landmark. Certainly no need of a Catholic or protestant church of that size!
As you could tell from my post, I was trying to understand Benedict as employing a tactic which would seek to maintain secularism as preferrable to sharia. Since the numbers of Catholics no longer justify a confessional state, almost anywhere in Europe, let alone Britain, while the Muslims are angling for sharia, eventually, here and there, including in Britain, defending secularism might not be such a bad idea.
Democracy can always let new bugs in the door, though . . .
And of course your point, I take it, is that in the mean time, we still have Catholics trying to live their lives in Britain, and the constraints on the Muslims may also hurt the Catholics. I suppose that these kinds of questions will have to be played out on a case by case basis.
This seems to be the time that we all ought to pray together, for the Restoration and Increase of the Christian Nations.
Sir, I looked at a good chunk of your post and would like your comment on the following:
1) The pamphlet does not appear to contradict the Holy Father Benedict XVI or the teachings of Vatican II specifically in “Dignitatis Humanae”.
2) The document “Dignitatis Humanae” has maintained a consistent but progressive (that word is not meant to be liberal) development in Catholic social doctrine:
Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society” (par 1f).
3) The pamphlet appears to be addressing a lopsided view of Catholic social doctrine that neglects to incorporate the pre-Vatican II teachings.
The Church maintains that the duty is for men to order society to God. This is accomplished first and foremost by being a believer and ordering your own life to God; and more perfectly in the Catholic Church. This means the ideal *is* for everyone to be Catholic and order society — through their own lives — to God. The problem of today is that there are substantial numbers (let’s say 5/6) that are not Catholic or not Christian. That means the Church cannot for practical purposes run a state. Benedict XVI states in his first encyclical “DEUS CARITAS EST” that the primary function of the Church is to save souls. It is *not* to run governments or states. That is up to the laity whose task it is to order their lives to God in everyday life.
Now the issue you are apparently concerned with is whether a dominant Catholic country should impose religion on non-Catholics via state laws. Since the subject is apparently non-infallible and Vatican II was a development in doctrine (or more bluntly a shift in social doctrine) one might say only time will tell. Apparently, the fathers of Vatican Council II were with the understanding that the document was to encourage non-Catholic countries to respect Catholics’ rights (ie, Communist regimes). Others state that the document entitles countries — even Catholic ones — to not impose a single religion on anyone. So the discussion continues…
[last post]
The last portion of your writing, not to impose a single religion on anyone, is a danger. If it is not carfeully examined, many would easily use such a statement to say:
- that all religions are equal,
- or that not all men are called to the Catholic Church,
- or that , in fact, the secular state cannot and should not have anything to do with God or religion, per se.
The last of these three, is a grave and crucial matter. It is often trumpeted and glorified as the model for the secular state today.
However, this merely makes the society follow the religion of “secular humanism” or of complete apathy- both of which do not fulfill the nature of man.
Any state, no matter what it is, will have a religious orientation- or vacuum (which is worse); the religious orientation is inescabable. If we are not Christian, we will be Mohommedean. If we are neither, we may be Jews. if neither: than pagans or atheists.
The true challenge of the Secular State is: How can one establish a Secular State that is oriented for the natural call and natural good of man, without imposing the necessity of what is his supernatural completion?
My initial thought is: Without the innocence of man, this is impossible.
Many say that things are “forced down their throat. I for one have decided to rephrase my expierence of this as “gift.”
May God bless you and the Imaculate Mother of the Sacred Heart aid and protect you!
God love you and the Holy Spirit guide you!
-Christopher
Christopher, thanks for the nice words. Did you know Benedict XVI states:
“The State may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions.”–DEUS CARITAS EST
Seems like the shift in social doctrine is gaining some momentum after Vatican II.
I would think the dangers you mention would not be possible if a Catholic country utilized Catholic morality/teaching in its application of various laws, etc. but this does not mean necessarily that the other non-Catholics should be forced to convert. So therefore the authentic teachings of the Church would be respected and promoted as the basis for the proper ordering of society while at the same time authenticating true religious freedom. Of course Vatican II outlines certain parameters for religious freedom (in other words everyone simply cannot just do whatever they want — think of radical Muslims who wish to kill other folks, for instance).
The idea is that a forced conversion is not a real one and God doesn’t want people to work this way. Some traditionalists are rather strange on this point, perhaps — kind of reminds me of some of the Muslims techniques of domination.
I think there’s confusion here. Where in Cardinal Ottaviani’s pamphlet did anyone mention “imposing religion.” No traditionalist argues that non-Catholics should be forced by governments to become Catholic. The question is whether non-Catholics should be permitted the same influence in the direction of political and social life as Catholics are. For instance, should the head of state be a Catholic? The President of Lebanon, for instance, is required to be a Catholic (not to make that state Catholic, but to insure proportional representation of religions — different Moslem sects control different constitutional offices there, too). Should the Catechism be taught in public schools? Should Crucifixes and Nativity scenes appear in public? Should Corpus Christi be a national holiday? Should divorce be illegal when the couple can’t get a Church annulment or separation (i.e. one without the right to remarry)? Nothing here entails holding a gun up to a protestant’s head and saying “convert.”
In the Middle Ages, the Church and the Inquisition DID NOT force Jews to become Catholics. However, Jews were not permitted the same civic rights because they conspired to destroy Catholicism (and that’s a fact — read the works of William Thomas Walsh). Jewish groups today, like the Anti-Defamation League, do the same, and they get interviews with the Pope! But, if a Jew converted, then they could be punished by the state for going back to their old religion. That’s because they would be committing perjury and treason — claiming to be Catholic and not being so. Same with protestants, like Huss. They could be punished since they were a menace to society, especially to the divine society of the Mystical Body of Christ. If the state was “imposing” religion, it was merely reinforcing the demands of the Church on those who claimed to belong to it.
Now, there were abuses, *as always.* Although I have not studied the matter in depth, the crusades against pagans in the Baltic may have exceeded the bounds of what religious goals can be obtained by force. (Chesterton ascribed Naziism to the fact that Prussians had been forced to convert, and hence never really absorbed Catholicism. The same can be said for Lutheranism.) Mobs attacked Jews in the Rhineland during the Crusades and in Spain, and the Crusaders burned a synagogue when they took Jerusalem. Terrible, terrible crimes — acts of hatred. And the Church protected the Jews — just as during the Nazi persecutions, anti-Semites accused the hierarchy of being “Jew-lovers”! In fact, the Inquisition and, probably, the ghettoes and occasional expulsions of Jews were undertaken with an eye toward ending serial unrest that frictions between Jews and Christians (including hateful pseudo-Christians) provoked. Certainly, the Inquisition provided a legal framework that countered the lynch mobs of Spain.
Those are just a few examples of what “imposition” of religion meant, in different times and places. But, despite all the many lies that Protestants, Enlightenment philosophes, freemasons, Eastern schismatics, Jewish activists, Moslem activists, Communists, Nazis, neo-pagans, multiculturalists, and wimpy “Catholics” have come up with (did I forget any of the usual suspects?), the Church simply did not approve of the use of force to obtain (spurious) conversions. It did approve of the use of force to protect the Catholicism of new converts and to uphold the duties of *professed Catholics* living within a confessional society.
Ah, now I see that Johnboy was trying to distinguish between what Christopher claimed and his own position. And Johnboy is right that the state may implement Catholic social teaching without therefore engaging in forced conversion — absolutely. Nevertheless, I do think that the introduction of the “forced conversion” question is a straw man. No one, I assure you, argues in favor of forced conversion, even those who most criticize the post-Vatican II leadership for deviating from the program laid out by Cardinal Ottaviani in this pamphlet.
Tobias,
really the issue brought forth by Vatican II was more than a straw man…not simply because an entire document was generated from topic; but also because pre-Vatican II social doctrine tended to vear towards forced conversions. Think of babies baptised outside of parental consent, abuses in religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
[last last post]
Johnboy, there is no reason to promise this “last, last post” thing. That permits you to make unsubstantiated claims without having to back up your statements when pressed to do so. Please show me where and when “pre-Vatican II social doctrine tended to vear towards forced conversions.” I do nopt want your unsubstantiated claims about “tendencies” and “veering.” I want proof. *Who* was forced to convert *due* to Church doctrine? I noted that the Church in the Middle Ages condemned forced conversions every bit as much as now. “Think of babies baptised outside of parental consent, abuses in religious liberty and freedom of conscience.” Who? Where? When? What are you talking about? And be sure to show how the Church *supported* the allegedly bad policies to which you refer.
Tobias, thank you for taking the time to respond to the nonsense which John Boy continues to comment with.
J-B, you’re simply not living in the real world. You are denying reality. Pick up these documents, read them: they support, beyond any doubt, confessional states. Have you read any of the following?
Longinqua oceani
Libertas praestantissimum
Sapientiae Christianae
Quas primas
or Cardinal Ottaviani’s lecture, which I have summarized here, delivered in the presence of the Supreme Pontiff, Pius XII? He wasn’t chosen to give the keynote address on the anniversary of the Pontiff’s election because he was a nut case, but because as head of the (now) CDF, it was his job to understand the teaching of the Church on such matters very well.
Anyone who has eyes can see that the Church has abandoned a teaching which Cardinal Ottaviani calls immemorial.
Dignitatis Humanae does not appear to contradict confessional states, I stated implicitly that I agree with the ideal of confessional states so long as they are not Church-run but laymen run.
As for my own two-bit reason why pre-Vatican II teaching *tended* to veer towards forced conversions was because the over-riding concern was that error has no rights and society has a duty to the true religion. There was no talk, to my knowledge, of that of the inviolable right for a person to act with a “bare faith.” And I did mention that Dignitatis Humanae prescribed certain limits to freedom, giving as an example the clear error in radical Muslim’s terrorizing on the basis of belief.
Perhaps my comment was not reality. But I have certainly heard of forced Baptisms of babies and, although evidently an ongoing historical debate, the abuses of Catholics in the area of religious liberty (and consequently freedom of conscience).
How can a teaching “tend” to “veer” toward forced conversion when EVERYONE who held to the teaching explicitly rejected forced conversions? (And they did explicitly reject forced conversions, long, long before Vatican II.) You might as well claim that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception “tends” to “veer” toward deifying Our Lady even though everyone who affirms the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception explicitly denies that Our Lady was divine.
Additionally, I respect the fact that you admit that Dignitatis Humanae permits confessional states. I also admit that there were abuses and instances where mobs and schimatic clerics instigated pogroms unless local Jews “converted.” And of course there were the lawless Machiavellian politics behind the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (although even the nature and proportions of that crime has been distorted for the sake of protestant and secularist propaganda). Nevertheless, the responsible clergy at the time, while upholding the Church’s teaching, condemned such acts as the heinous crimes they were. Since these were the men who protected the doctrine on church-state relations, I don’t see how you can accuse them of having fostered by their teaching the very crimes they condemned.
I do not know why the issue over confessional states was even brought up — I never denied this. Maybe there was confusion as to what exactly a confessional state was. I’m wondering (although not too anxious) to hear what you think it is. I did some research on it before my last response because it appeared in Iosephus’ post that I was denying this. In any case at least you do understand that I do not hold confessional states are inappropriate–so long as they are run by laymen.
I think you need to come to grips with the distinction that you don’t need to punish people or perform heinous crimes to coerce them into accepting a certain religion. It’s a matter of tolerance, my friend. Tolerance not of error in and of itself but of the respect for a person’s personal decisions and beliefs. In our day and age the Church sees tremendous wisdom in this–and I’d hate to think folks don’t.
“I think you need to come to grips with the distinction that you don’t need to punish people or perform heinous crimes to coerce them into accepting a certain religion.”
Wow, such confusion. Where did I promote “punishing people or performing heinous crimes to coerce them into accepting a certain religion.” Specify where I said this. Burning at the stake? Is that what you are referring to? You do not understand why medieval and early modern Catholics did that, despite my efforts to make you understand. They *did* not do it in order to “coerce” people into accepting Catholicism. Erase, delete that from your mind. To “coerce” means to intimidate someone to do something. The Church did not use burning at the stake to “coerce” people into being Catholic. They did it to punish people who were false Catholics. The state does not run prisons in order to “coerce” people into being good. It runs prisons in order to suppress malefactors and to protect society. Heretics — people who pretended to be Christians but who were not — were an incredible menace to souls. Think of the man and wife in the New Testament who were struck dead by St. Peter to punish their sinfulness. Was God “coercing” the rest of the Church to be good? No, He was punishing the wicked and protecting the divine society of the Church. I repeat: the Inquisition did not *coerce* people to become Catholic. The Inquisition did not want people to say they were Catholic out of fear. They did not want false confessions — they weren’t Communists. They wanted malefactors to repent of their sins. Some had to be punished because their crimes — and they were crimes, crimes that struck at the basis of the confessional state — deserved it. But if you asked the Inquisitor, “Mr. Inquisitor, are you trying to intimidate people into being Catholic when they otherwise would not be,” he would say, “No. Now what is your name . . .” There is an absolute, metaphysical distinction between punishment and coercion. Coercion concerns present and future acts, by survivors. Punishment concerns past acts. The Church has always condemned the use of force to compel non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism. If and when this happened, it was DESPITE, not because of the traditional teaching upheld in Cardinal Ottaviani’s pamphlet. Burning at the stake was done for people who *already claimed to be Catholic* but who were not. Or for people who apostatized and hence were a threat to their own souls and to others’. But the punishments were not coercive. Do you understand the difference between coercion and punishment and why the two should never be confused? Do you see that the Inquisition was directed toward bad Catholics and not toward non-Catholics? So the Inquisition could not possibly have intimidated non-Catholics to convert, as non-Catholics did not fall under its jurisdiction. I assume you still object to even this (the punishment) but cannot object on the grounds that you stated. And the use of coercion in obtaining spurious conversions has always been condemned, and I condemn it here (without “veering,” without “tending” toward anything). And if you are not talking about the Inquisition — heck, Johnboy, do you even know of any specific instances from which to draw generalizations in the first place? — then what are you referring to? Why am I providing examples for you?
“The state does not run prisons in order to “coerce” people into being good.” Actually, that may not be the best example. Let me phrase it this way: ideally, we hope that people will become gbod citizens for the right reasons, i.e. not because they fear the negative consequences of conviction. A country of people who behave well *only* because of fear is a police state. Salutary fear is wholesome, but for converts, this fear should be fear of damnation if they fail to follow through on God’s graces, not fear of civil punishment.
Also, I should rather have related punishment, coercion, and time relations as follows. Coercion seeks to alter one’s course from what it otherwise might be. It addresses present or future events. “Don’t do X, *because* otherwise I will punish you.” Punishment may also address present circumstances, not just past ones. The person engaged in punishment says, “You already are/have done X, therefore I will punish you.” In case I have slipped up, somebody please correct me.
The inquisitors did not mean to intimidate false Catholics to maintain their hypocrisy (i.e. to “coerce” obedience). They did want to inspire in their audience a salutary fear of hell, which would be even worse than the pains of those consigned to terrestrial flames. That fear would inspire confession of sins against the faith, which would lead to confession and repentance. Inevitably, there were people who persisted in their heresies but simply never verbalized it out of fear of the stake. The Inquisitors did NOT want anyone to persist in heresy, whether silently or not, but probably they viewed this silence as better than dissemination of the said errors. But such people are lukewarm cowards, and I wouldn’t lose sleep over such people if I didn’t have a salutary fear that I may in the end wind up among them.
Basta! But as you can see, the point was never to “coerce” anyone into “accepting Catholicism.” The Inquisition was constructed to figure out who was faking it just to get by.
Sir–I understand what you are attempting to say –er justify– for the Inquisition etc. I don’t dispute it, but I do not know enough about it to come to a educated conclusion anyways.
I never said you held that punishing or performing heinous crimes was appropriate. I read several times (?) that you did not. You even stated that good Catholic clerics avoided this nonsense.
But you did state:
I also admit that there were abuses and instances where mobs and schimatic clerics instigated pogroms unless local Jews “converted.”
to which I would undeniably admit other atrocious forms of persecution on the basis of rooting out error.
My point was that the pre-Vatican II teachings tended to veer toward coersion. I did not get into what you believe or what you don’t.
However, you imply that there was that stuff going on in extreme cases. Now either you can simply say, “No, the pre-Vatican II social teachings simply did not vear toward coersion” or hold the opposite or some sort of neutral position. This debate has nothing to do with doctrine per se but manner with which Catholics tended to act out toward non-Catholics pre-Vatican II. This, of course, is more than a thread from solving and there is no need to dispute by becomming so defensive. Yes, I fully recall you’re historical “analysis” of the Inquisition and that of the so called “burning of heretics” of the Middle Ages.
PS–A brief look through “National Geographic’s History of the World” has an entire page under the title “Persecution of Jews in Europe.” I do see a quote that states “anti-semitism was widespread in medieval Europe. The Jews were maligned as the ‘Murders of Christ’” etc. etc. Sounds like maybe things weren’t all so hunky dory.
Ps–excuse the poor grammar.