Forced baptism and torts

[Vouthon]

This seems to be another way of putting what I said: the parents force baptism on the child, who can't consent.

I think there's a strong argument in favour of the Baptist and Anabaptist doctrinal stance that baptism should be held off until someone is of a sufficient age of legal competence and responsibility to intellectually consent to his or her own admission into the Christian faith.

A free assent to any religious entry rite is always preferable in my mind, because as Pope Nicholas wrote to the Bulgar Khan in that 866 A.D. letter I cited earlier: "anything which is not voluntary cannot be good".

Arguably, there is no clear warrant for infant baptism in the New Testament scriptures. It is rather a Patristic custom of very ancient and venerable heritage, from the time when Christianity ceased being a minority, dissident cult and became "normative" for society.

However, in spite of my admiration and respect for the Anabaptist position, I do not think that infant baptism is a violation of human rights.

So long as a church recognises that the baptised infant has the natural right to renounce the faith of their upbringing upon legal age of maturity (which the Catholic Church defined doctrinally during the Second Vatican Council), I cannot personally see the harm that ensues from sprinkling some water on a baby's head over a baptismal font.

The idea that baptism imprints a permanent character on the soul - erasing the effects of original sin and bringing someone into mystical communion with Christ in his Body - is "superstitious" from the perspective of secular folk. To you, baptism is nothing more than sprinkling water on someone's head in a strange ritual over a font.

Because we don't believe in full body immersion, there is more danger to a child from bathtime than baptism.

It doesn't modify the child's body in anyway, nor deny them the right to legally change religion upon adulthood, which the church respects because the baptized do not lose their volition and freedom. Thankfully, we live in the West today without blasphemy, heresy or apostasy laws and this will remain the case, God willing, forever now.

St. Thomas Aquinas was (1225– 1274) one of the theologians who defended the "parental right" to raise a child in a given religion prior to their age of majority and to be fair to him, he was egalitarian in recognising that natural right as the same for all parents - Catholics, Jews, Muslims, pagans etc.:


SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Those who receive Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 68)

The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage.

If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents."

Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will.

Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents' will.

​

Just as parents have the right to decide how a child is to be educated (i.e. they could pay for a private school or go for the state sector), I see no reason why one should be prohibited from rearing their child in their own faith, so long as it is crystal clear that once the child comes of age, they have no right to compel him or her against their will from continuing to practise this ancestrally or parentally inherited creed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So long as a church recognises that the baptised infant has the natural right to renounce the faith of their upbringing upon legal age of maturity (which the Catholic Church defined doctrinally during the Second Vatican Council), I cannot personally see the harm that ensues from sprinkling some water on a baby's head over a baptismal font.

That's news to me. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church still considers anyone validly baptized to be irrevocably Christian for life.

The idea that baptism imprints a permanent character on the soul - erasing the effects of original sin and bringing someone into mystical communion with Christ in his Body - is "superstitious" from the perspective of secular folk. To you, baptism is nothing more than sprinkling water on someone's head in a strange ritual over a font.

No, it's more than just sprinkling water. It's also a declaration on the part of the parents.

In the Catholic tradition, by bringing a child to be baptized, the parents are effectively saying, "yes - we do agree that our newborn baby is such a little ball of evil that a perfectly good God could very well be entirely justified in punishing her for eternity because of how evil she is, so we want you to do a ritual to 'fix' her."

The fact that the ritual is, as you point out, silly and superstitious doesn't change the underlying sentiment in the theology around it.

Luckily, it seems that many (most?) Catholics don't think too deeply about the theology and instead approach baptism with sentiments like "if I didn't do this, I'd never hear the end of it from Nonna" or "my kid will need a baptismal certificate to get into that school I'm planning to send her to" rather than buying into the official doctrines around the ritual.

 

[Vouthon]

That's news to me. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church still considers anyone validly baptized to be irrevocably Christian for life.

The doctrine is that baptism imbeds an irrevocable mark 'upon the soul' by cleansing it of original sin and incorporating someone into the body of Christ. Canonically, therefore, the church would regard that person as having been baptised into Christ but this is a separate matter from their continued right to freely assent or not give assent to religion.

This does not equal "that person should have no immunity under law just like everyone else to change their religion".

The Second Vatican Council defined very clearly in Dignitatis Humanae that: "It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind...It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community".

If a person baptised Christian decides to become an atheist or join another religious community, DH defined that this is a right that cannot and should not be taken away from them.

Why does the 'superstitious' self-understanding of the church as to what this baptism means - an irrevocable cleansing from original sin - matter to someone who freely rejects the metaphysical basis behind the ritual and whom the church today says is perfectly free to do so if that's what following his/her conscience means for that individual in their search for truth?

It only matters to those who actually believe in it. Once you cease believing it, baptism becomes just water sprinkled on the head in a peculiar ritual. It leaves no lasting physical effects, nor does it inhibit that person in any way from exercising freedom of religion as an adult in a free society, by simply ceasing to attend Mass and no longer identifying as a Catholic. The inquisition aren't going to come knocking at their door!

 

[Vouthon]

In the Catholic tradition, by bringing a child to be baptized, the parents are effectively saying, "yes - we do agree that our newborn baby is such a little ball of evil that a perfectly good God could very well be entirely justified in punishing her for eternity because of how evil she is, so we want you to do a ritual to 'fix' her."

At one time, this might have been the popular understanding (hence the non-dogmatic popular belief in "Limbo" as afterlife destination for unbaptised infants) but it is not today. Likewise, the church has never taught that children before the age of reason commit 'personal sin' and are accountable for that before God (again, hence 'Limbo' because the medievals reasoned that they couldn't be sent to hell without any personal sins).

Doctrinally, the church had simply never 'defined' what the afterlife state was (just as it has never defined if anyone is in the state of hell or if hell is empty, both of them being acceptable opinions for a Catholic to hold) leaving it open to conjecture. We do not even believe that unbaptized adults are damned to hell ipso facto on account of their not being baptised (as I noted earlier with sources from even pre-Vatican II), let alone infants without any personal sins.

Today, the church has a more developed understanding of the mercy of God and would never teach that unbaptised infants are denied entry to heaven (indeed, God can act outside of the sacraments and this has always been doctrine i.e. "nothing is impossible with God"), hence 'limbo' being decisively excluded from the equation by post-Vatican II pontiffs.

But again, why the heck does the superstitious belief itself matter? It doesn't inhibit the person as an adult from rejecting it and choosing some other, more rational or appealing, conception of truth. Nor does it alter the body of the infant in any way or harm them in any other way that I could possibly think of.

Again, I'm willing to admit that the Baptist/Anabaptist stance is more 'enlightened' but I don't see infant baptism as harmful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just as parents have the right to decide how a child is to be educated (i.e. they could pay for a private school or go for the state sector), I see no reason why one should be prohibited from rearing their child in their own faith, so long as it is crystal clear that once the child comes of age, they have no right to compel him or her against their will from continuing to practise this ancestrally or parentally inherited creed.

That right you're making the analogy to isn't a free-for-all, though. The child's still education has to meet certain standards, whether ethical or legal.

For instance, when we hear about ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities where the boys' only formal education is in reading and reciting the Torah (and the girls get no formal education at all), we can recognize that this approach to "education" does the child a disservice and be justifiably outraged.

Parents are stewards of children, not their owners. Parents' rights in bringing up their children are predicated on the assumption that they have the child's best interests at heart.

In some cases - e.g. choosing a public school or an accredited private school - the parents' action is compatible with this assumption. In other cases - e.g. not teaching the child anything but the Torah - the parents' actions demonstrate that the assumption was wrong and the parents don't have the child's best interests at heart.

Infant baptism isn't as extreme as, say, not teaching a child any employable skills at all, but it can often be one element of a pattern that shows that the parents do not have the best interest of the child at heart.

And as for it being "crystal clear" that the child can leave once they're an adult... I've never once seen any hint that the Catholic Church considers validly baptized people to not be Christian anymore in any circumstance.

Apart from that, the practical reality is that people raised by Catholic parents (and many other religions - this is far from unique to Catholics) are often far from free to choose their own religious path. Familial and social pressure to stay at least nominally Catholic is common.

... and just try to get yourself removed from the Church's membership rolls. I've seen many stories from atheists in countries like Germany that have a "church tax" and their experience trying to get themselves removed from a church's membership list so that the church won't receive tax money in their name; the Catholic Church makes it as difficult as possible. It seems that the only reason they allow people to leave their rolls at all is that they're legally required to do so.

 

[Vouthon]

And as for it being "crystal clear" that the child can leave once they're an adult... I've never once seen any hint that the Catholic Church considers validly baptized people to not be Christian anymore in any circumstance.

As I noted earlier, the church believes two things doctrinally: (1) baptism leaves a permanent imprint on the soul, inasmuch as it is thought to cleanse it from the effects of original sin and incorporate one into the body of Christ (2) the church has always taught that assent to faith must be free and that no one should be compelled, or restrained, from acting against what their conscience tells them is the truth. DH, the Vatican II decree, sharpened the application of this second doctrine by making clear that it applies to everyone, baptised or unbaptized, giving them a natural right to immunity when deciding to join or leave a religious community.

If you define "Christian" as anyone who has been baptised into Christ, then yes, the church would still view that person as residually Christian in that loose sense. But the church equally respects and does not deny that person's immutable right to leave the communion their parents chose for them at birth and identify with another religion or no religion at all, as guided by the light of their own conscience. Faith cannot be coerced, because religion pertains to interior conviction as St. Paul tells us in his letters and DH reiterated at Vatican II.

It's my understanding that Germany has some bizarre church tax regulations as you say and I've read myself that the church in Germany has been pretty desirous not to lose their tax revenues

But I think the system in the first place is wrong and should be thoroughly secularized. The only donations anyone should have to make to a church are the voluntary ones during the collection at Mass that is actually canonical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At one time, this might have been the popular understanding (hence the non-dogmatic popular belief in "Limbo" as afterlife destination for unbaptised infants) but it is not today. Likewise, the church has never taught that children before the age of reason commit 'personal sin' and are accountable for that before God (again, hence 'Limbo' because the medievals reasoned that they couldn't be sent to hell without any personal sins).

Doctrinally, the church had simply never 'defined' what the afterlife state was (just as it has never defined if anyone is in the state of hell or if hell is empty, both of them being acceptable opinions for a Catholic to hold) leaving it open to conjecture.

I wasn't talking about Limbo; I was talking about Hell.

And to the extent that the Church "leaves it open to conjecture," it's implicitly saying that any of a range of possibilities - up to and including eternal torture - are compatible with their idea of a perfectly good and just God.

We do not even believe that unbaptized adults are damned to hell ipso facto on account of their not being baptised (as I noted earlier with sources from even pre-Vatican II), let alone infants without any personal sins.

Today, the church has a more developed understanding of the mercy of God and would never teach that unbaptised infants are denied entry to heaven (indeed, God can act outside of the sacraments and this has always been doctrine i.e. "nothing is impossible with God"), hence 'limbo' being decisively excluded from the equation by post-Vatican II pontiffs.

It certainly leaves the possibility open that God might consign unbaptized infants to Hell. This is built into the idea of the necessity of baptism, which is very much a current teaching. That was the point I was getting at.

If the Church actually thought that unbaptized babies didn't deserve Hell, they would be able say this definitively: they could say "consigning a baby to Hell would be evil, but our God is perfectly good, so we can be sure that He would never do such a thing."

Instead, they shrug: "maybe unbaptized babies deserve Hell, which might be eternal torment. Who can say? If an infinitely wise, good and just being did decide to torture that baby forever, I wouldn't say there was anything amiss about that. I can't say that it would happen; I'm just saying that if it did happen, I wouldn't have an issue with it."

But again, why the heck does the superstitious belief itself matter? It doesn't inhibit the person as an adult from rejecting it and choosing some other, more rational or appealing, conception of truth. Nor does it alter the body of the infant in any way or harm them in any other way that I could possibly think of.

Again, I'm willing to admit that the Baptist/Anabaptist stance is more 'enlightened' but I don't see infant baptism as harmful.

The baptism itself probably isn't that harmful in and of itself if it's just, say, lip-service that's done to stop Nonna from fretting without any deeper intent behind it (though even that's an example of unhealthy religious coercion being pushed on the parents).

Where the harm really comes in is in the overall raising a child as a little Catholic, of which baptism is just the first step.

You keep on speaking to adults not being "inhibited" as if it somehow excuses bad parenting. I mean, a person would be technically free to choose their own career even if their parents threatened to disown them and kick them out at 18 unless they became a geologist, but that doesn't mean this is a good parenting approach.

I don't see why I should give parents a free pass on this kind of approach to their children's religious path when we'd condemn it if they used it for their career path.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I noted earlier, the church believes two things doctrinally: (1) baptism leaves a permanent imprint on the soul, inasmuch as it is thought to cleanse it from the effects of original sin and incorporate one into the body of Christ (2) the church has always taught that assent to faith must be free and that no one should be compelled, or restrained, from acting against what their conscience tells them is the truth. DH, the Vatican II decree, sharpened the application of this second doctrine by making clear that it applies to everyone, baptised or unbaptized, giving them a natural right to immunity when deciding to join or leave a religious community.

I think you know as well as I do that the Catholic Church draws a distinction between participating in their "religious community" and being a Christian.

If you define "Christian" as anyone who has been baptised into Christ, then yes, the church would still view that person as residually Christian in that loose sense.

... which the Catholic Church does do.

But the church equally respects and does not deny that person's immutable right to leave the communion their parents chose for them at birth and identify with another religion or no religion at all, as guided by the light of their own conscience. Faith cannot be coerced, because religion pertains to interior conviction as St. Paul tells us in his letters and DH reiterated at Vatican II.

But the Catholic Church is not a sola fide denomination.

It's my understanding that Germany has some bizarre church tax regulations as you say and I've read myself that the church in Germany has been pretty desirous not to lose their tax revenues

But I think the system in the first place is wrong and should be thoroughly secularized. The only donations anyone should have to make to a church are the voluntary ones during the collection at Mass that is actually canonical.

Sure, but it's still an example of how, in a practical sense, the Catholic Church does not allow people to leave freely.

It's even more difficult to get off the membership rolls in countries where there isn't a financial stake for the Church and a baptized atheist just wants to get the Church to stop counting them in the membership stats they post publicly.

In those cases, the government doesn't intervene to insist that the Church must allow former members to officially leave, so it's fairly common for former Catholics' requests in this regard to just be refused.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you're NOT suggesting legislating against religion (at least in terms of religious schools, attendance at church, etc)...then what are we talking about???

I am basically advocating equality under the law. If a belief is strong and solid enough, it can survive exposure to the outside world.
And, keep in mind, I have things like the Amish and Yoder v Wisconsin in mind. That does relegate children to basically property amd gives them an abysmal amoujt if choice until they are adults. Those lines of thinking create special exemptions for not vaccinating children, or even abusing them. In America it is an excess that must be reigned in as "freedom of religion" and "parental sovereignty" have been stretched to dangerous and destructive ends (no the wars to teach real, proper sex ed in school here).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You’re making this a circular argument. You’re use of the word “force” is what’s at issue here. It isn’t “force” if the child is unable to consent for her/himself, anymore than diapering that same child is “forcing” her/his bathroom habits.

They're all forcing. Diapers are necessary and reasonable forcing; baptism is optional.

It’s not baptism per se at issue. What’s really at issue is your objection to parents rearing a child with a particular spiritual foundation.

That's right. Baptism is merely the first step, and it's much less an issue (though still somewhat an issue) if it's done as lip-service to, say, make family happy and won't be followed up on than it is if it's just the first example of religious oppression that a child will have to endure.

And I disagree that those who have no spiritual foundation have the same opportunities for wholeness as those who do.

So bigotry for the non-religious it is.

Your point? You think this is a bad thing? Let’s all wring our hands and throw ourselves off a cliff because a child was reared in the church “against her/his will.” That’s such BS. Children grow up and leave the church All. The. Time.

The fact that children often overcome crappy parenting doesn't excuse the parents.

See above. Mainstream Xy doesn’t hold people hostage to faith, and if they do, they need to reevaluate their ethics.

Which is it: do they or don't they?

(I think you know the answer to this as well as I do)

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that people who are not reared with a spiritual foundation don’t have the same opportunities to explore that aspect of themselves.

Which is nonsense, obviously.

Just because you find your "spiritual foundation" to be personally fulfilling doesn't mean you need to force your religion on a child... especially not when you'd be pushing one religion to the exclusion of the many other competing religions and non-religious belief systems that might provide just as good - if not better - opportunities for "exploration."

I find it very fulfilling and rewarding to be a civil engineer, but there's no way on Earth I'd raise a child as if they must become a civil engineer. That would be crappy parenting... even if I "allowed" them to choose some other career when they became an adult.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. Not trying to change your mind here, just explaining my view...

Something harms a child, or it doesn't.

Splashing water on a kids head? Causes no harm.

Splashing water on a kid's head causes no harm in and of itself.

The harm comes over the longer term from being subjected to a childhood that ends up causing religious trauma syndrome in the adult the child becomes.

Religious beliefs should be treated the same under law as other beliefs. There is nothing special about them...legally...no protection afforded them.
But to me that belief cuts both ways. If there's nothing special about them, then so be it. They shouldn't be targetted by laws either.

Now, if you're suggesting religion should be legislated against? I don't think that society ends up in a good place.

If you're NOT suggesting legislating against religion (at least in terms of religious schools, attendance at church, etc)...then what are we talking about???

My personal position - which it sounds like you agree with - is to not single out religion for special treatment good or band, and just legislate against the harm. If a religion inflicts no harm, it would have nothing to worry about.

... though many religions do inflict a great deal of harm, and virtually all of them would lose out compared to the status quo if we took away their positive special treatment.

 

[Vouthon]

But the Catholic Church is not a sola fide denomination.

Agreed, but I'm not entirely sure what your meaning in raising this was?

How does the Catholic Church not being a sole fide tradition nullify the point made by both Paul and DH that faith is an interior conviction that conscience alone can dictate?

What was it that made your wife's forced baptism of you invalid? The fact that you did not consent, because you lacked the faith.

Now, in someone baptised as a child, the theology holds that the "imprint" - spiritual cleansing and incorporation into Christ - is permanent (unlike in your case where it did not imprint at all, because you were of the rational ability to consent or not consent) but the faith factor isn't. The religious beliefs may not be there, in which case the church has no right to compel the person to act against their conscience and give expression to what they don't have within them.

Hebrews 11:1: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen", every Christian denomination - sole fide or not - believes in this definition of religious faith as a conviction, one that cannot be compelled or coerced from someone.

Typically, if you possess this faith and are baptised, then you'll attend church and take part in it's ritual life. If you don't possess this faith - this interior conviction - then you'll either not attend church or attend for only cultural reasons. Either way, that's an individual determination the person has to make in accordance with conscience.

Either way, though, the act of religious faith and it's public expression cannot be coerced. A person either has it or they don't, regardless of their being baptised. Indeed, if a catechumen dies before baptism, they are considered to baptised in spirit and "of the faith" (i.e. "a pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5)).

An example from a medieval decree by Pope Innocent III concerning a priest who had died without ever receiving water baptism:

POPE INNOCENT III (1206)

Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland

In the above case, his "perseverance" in faith 'saved' him (note, not just the mere faith but the perseverance of it, implying expression through good works and conducting his religious duties i.e. not once saved, always saved).

So, he was a Christian as to faith though not formally baptised as a member of the church. Many folks - from the church's POV - have that in reverse: they are formally baptised but are not Christian as to faith (and they have a natural right not to be, in accordance with conscience irrespective of whether they've been baptised or not).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agreed, but I'm not entirely sure what your meaning in raising this was?

How does the Catholic Church not being a sole fide tradition nullify the point made by both Paul and DH that faith is an interior conviction that conscience alone can dictate?

It's more how I don't see how the point was relevant. We were talking about how the Catholic Church considers anyone who was validly baptized to be irrevocably Christian. That seems to me to be more about efficacy of the sacraments if anything, not faith.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see how your point connects to what we were talking about.

What was it that made your wife's forced baptism of you invalid? The fact that you did not consent, because you lacked the faith.

Slightly different issue, since the Church most definitely considers infant baptisms be valid.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Vouthon
And yet, despite all those papal decrees, Jews were still forced to convert. There were non-violent conversions, such as the "convert or lose everything and get out of Spain" in 1492. And there were the violent conversions of the Inquisition of those who dared to stay.

Anyhow, I do thank you for all of the documentation.

What was the post number where you addressed the Jewish child issue? I'd really like to read it.

 

[Vouthon]

Slightly different issue, since the Church most definitely considers infant baptisms be valid.

It is far more complicated than 'baptism = Christian'.

All water baptism does, in the Catholic understanding, is permanently cleanse the soul - in some mysterious way - from the effects of original sin (the irrevocable element) and admit someone into the Church (the Mystical Body of Christ). The former leaves a permanent spiritual impression, while the latter is not 'irrevocable' but contingent upon 'preserving in the faith' of which baptism is merely the entry-sacrament (the beginning).

A person can be 'of the faith' before baptism by already professing it - just like that priest in the example from Innocent III who died without water baptism. He was a Christian, an unbaptized Christian and saved by his 'perseverance in the faith of the church'. If you consider this statement closely, and excepting the explicit denial of once saved/always saved, you'll notice that it isn't actually very far from the Lutheran Protestant understanding of justification. People often exaggerate the differences for apologetical effect but if our Protestants friends simply add the conditional preserving then its a perfectly Catholic statement to say that faith 'saves'.

If a person ceases to proclaim the faith, then he ceases to be a Christian (of the 'body' of the church). That does not nullify the sacramental character of his baptism (should he choose to be re-admitted to communion with the church, he would not need to be re-baptised because his original baptism is valid) but it does render him no longer 'a Christian' in principle.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621), a Jesuit Doctor of the Church and the leading Counter-Reformation luminary, used the analogy of soul and body to differentiate between those who are Christian and those who aren't. Note the bolded lines:


The Church, what is it? — Virgo Potens

The Catholic teaching is that the Church is only one, not two, and that the body of men of the same Christian profession and of the same Sacraments gathered in communion is one and true...From such a definition it can be clearly understood which men pertain to the Church and which do not. For there are three parts of this definition; the profession of the true faith, the communion of the Sacraments...

By the reasoning of the first all non-believers and those who have never entered the Church are excluded, such as Jews, Turks, and Pagans; then those who were in the Church but left, such as heretics and apostates. By the reasoning of the second part, all Catechumens and excommunicates are excluded, because they have not been admitted to the communion of the Sacraments....

It must be noted with Augustine, that the Church is a living body in which there is a soul and body, and in the soul there are internal gifts of the Holy Spirit, namely Faith, Hope, and Charity, etc. The body is the external profession of faith as well as the communication of the Sacraments. From there it happens that some men are in the soul and body of the Church and furthermore are united to Christ the head inwardly and outwardly, and such are perfectly in the Church, since they are as living members in the body, although among them are also some who participate more or less in the life of the Church, and some even who might hold only the beginning of life like a sense but not a motion, just as those who only have faith without charity. Again, some might be in the soul of the Church and not in the body, such as Catechumens or the excommunicated if they might have faith and charity, which can happen. Then, some may be in the body, but not the soul, such as those who have no internal virtue, and still by hope, or by some temporal fear profess the faith and communicate in the Sacraments under the rule of their pastors, and such are like hairs or nails, or bad humors in the human body....

Augustine says that Catechumens are in the Church....

Therefore, our definition holds true in this last manner of being in the Church, because this at least is required, that one can be said to be apart of the visible Church. Therefore, it must in the proper order be proved that the following do not pertain to the Church: the unbaptized, heretics, apostates, excommunicates and schismatics.

Likewise, 1 John II says, ‘They went out from us, but they were not from among us,’ in other words, they went out from us because they were with us in the same Church but they were not from us according to divine election, as St. Augustine explains.

2.) This is proved from the 18th and 19th chapter of the Council of Nicaea, where heretics are said to be able to be received in the Church if they wish to return to it, although under certain conditions. In like manner, from the chapter Firmiter of the Lateran Council, on the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, where the Church is called the congregation of the faithful. It is certain that heretics are not in any manner among the faithful.

3.) From the Fathers, Irenaeus says that Polycarp converted many heretics to the Church, whence it follows that beforehand they had gone out from the Church...

Lastly, it happens that when the Church was a united multitude (for a certain people are either a kingdom, or one body) and this particular union consists in the profession of the one faith, the observance of the same laws and rights; no reason permits that we might say they are of the body of the Church who have altogether no union with it.”

— (Bellarmine and Grant. 2017. PP. 243-244)

​

The body he defined as "the external profession of faith as well as the communication of the Sacraments", the soul of the church being, "the internal gifts of the Holy Spirit, namely Faith, Hope, and Charity".

So no, people who have left the faith - 'apostates' to use the unseemly pre-Vatican II language, abandoned these days for those now delicately called 'converts to something else' - do not pertain to the church in body (external profession of faith and communion with the sacraments), although they may still do in soul as with catechumens and "heretics" (albeit 'implicitly' in the former case, by means of possessing the hidden theological virtues) and thus be 'saved' in spite of their apostasy/heresy.

I do not concur with your understanding of who is 'of' and 'not of' the Church.

If a person repudiates the Nicene creed and will not any longer publicly proclaim it, then he / she is no longer of the 'body' of the Church i.e. not a member or a Christian, because he has stopped professing. If he / she also lacks the theological virtues, then he / she is also not of the soul of the Church.

For salvation, it is necessary to at least be of the 'soul' of the church, which consists chiefly in an 'act of love' which supplies the sanctifying grace in the event of a 'lack of baptism' or a lack of communion with the church:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness – the beatific vision of God – are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism….”​

(Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 29 October 1951)​

 

[Vouthon]

@Vouthon
And yet, despite all those papal decrees, Jews were still forced to convert. There were non-violent conversions, such as the "convert or lose everything and get out of Spain" in 1492. And there were the violent conversions of the Inquisition of those who dared to stay.

Anyhow, I do thank you for all of the documentation.

What was the post number where you addressed the Jewish child issue? I'd really like to read it.

Indeed, consider the sheer volume of papal decrees. That's only a handful that I quoted - the list of medieval Popes issuing these "don't forcibly convert Jews" bulls is astoundingly long:


Sicut Judaeis - Wikipedia

Sicut Judaeis (Latin: "As the Jews") were papal bulls which set out the official position of the papacy regarding the treatment of Jews. The first bull by that name was issued in about 1120 by Calixtus II and served as a papal charter of protection to Jews. It was prompted by attacks on Jews by the First Crusade, during which over five thousand Jews were slaughtered in Europe. The bull forbade Christians, on pain of excommunication, from forcing Jews to convert, from harming them, from taking their property, from disturbing the celebration of their festivals, and from interfering with their cemeteries.

Following further attacks, further bulls by many popes reaffirmed the doctrine, including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).[1][2]
​

We must bear in mind that every date on that list of papal names signifies a slaughter, pogrom or mass assault upon Jews or Jewish worship that reached the attention of the Vatican and was disturbing enough for the Apostolic See to motivate the Pontiffs to issue the excommunication decrees on the perpetrators.

Things must have been bad for that to happen. There is genuine human suffering, death and misery behind those 'numbers'.

My post is here:


Forced baptism and torts

This was probably the darkest episode in papal - Jewish relations (Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council being the brightest) but it should not be seen as nullifying the papal efforts in past centuries - however limited or restricted by prejudice or supersessionist bias they might have been - to protect the lawful rights that the Jewish community possessed under canon law since the time of Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century.

There were always popes who treated Jews poorly and popes who treated Jews (relatively for their time) in a friendly and understanding manner. But the official canonical papal policy on the actual statutes was the one initiated by Gregory the Great. It always remained the actual official stace of the church, no matter the individual views of a given pontiff.

It's complicated, as they say. We're talking here about a 2,000 year relationship between two religious communities, both of which emerged from Second Temple Judaism in a state of antagonism over certain points of doctrine and practice.

The story, in terms of the Papacy, really begins in earnest with Pope Gregory the Great. He objected to the destruction, dispossession and descration of synagogues, as well as forced baptism:


Pope Gregory I and Judaism - Wikipedia

Pope Gregory I (c.540-604), also known as Gregory the Great, was influential in the formation of Catholic doctrine in relation to the Jews. He was responsible for a notable Papal Bull which spoke of a requirement for Christians to protect and defend the Jewish people, which became official doctrine. He publicly disapproved of the compulsory baptism of Jews, and insisted on their right to liberty of action, both in civil affairs and in their worship.

In various epistles, Gregory insisted on the right of Jews to "liberty of action, so far as the law permitted, both in civil affairs and in the worship of the synagogue" (Epistles 1.34; 2.6; 8.25; 9.38; 9.195; 13.15).

In Epistle 1.14, Pope Gregory expressly disapproved of the compulsory baptism of Jews[2]

June 591 : "Censure of Virgil, bishop of Arles, and Theodore, bishop of Marseille, for having baptized Jews by force. They are to desist.[3]

"For it is necessary to gather those who are at odds with the Christian religion the unity of faith by meekness, by kindness, by admonishing, by persuading, lest these...should be repelled by threats and terrors. They ought, therefore, to come together to hear from you the Word of God in a kindly frame of mind, rather than stricken with dread, result of a harshness that goes beyond due limits." [4]

November 602 : "Admonition to Paschasius, bishop of Naples, to ensure that the Jews are not disturbed in the celebration of their religious festivals." [5]

"TO PASCHASIUS, BISHOP OF NAPLES: Those who, with sincere intent, desire to lead people outside the Christian religion to the correct faith, ought to make the effort by means of what is pleasant, not with what is harsh, lest opposition drive afar the mind of men whom reasoning...could have attracted. Those who act otherwise...demonstrate that they are concerned with their own enterprises, rather than with those of God! Now, the Jews dwelling in Naples have registered a complaint with Us, asserting that certain people are attempting, in an unreasonable fashion, to restrain them from some of the solemnities connected with their own feast days, as it has been lawful for them to observe or celebrate these up to now, and for their forefathers from long ages past...For of what use is this, when...it avails nothing toward their faith and conversion?...One must act, therefore, in such a way that...they might desire to follow us rather than to fly from us...Rather let them enjoy their lawful liberty to observe and to celebrate their festivities, as they have enjoyed this up until now." [6]
​

Jewish History 590 - 599

590 POPE GREGORY THE GREAT

Formulated the official Papal policy regarding Jews; they were to be tolerated according to the regulations passed by the previous council. Gregory objected to forced baptism, but valued converts. This policy which was officially set in canon 60 of the council of Toledo(633), became the basis for the rejection of forced baptism by many Popes. Even anti- Jewish popes like Innocent III rejected forced baptism.​

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am basically advocating equality under the law.

Sorry, you'll have to clarify, not sure if I understand. For the purposes of this, assume I'm talking about a 8 year old kid.
Do you think baptism should be allowed or not?
Do you think church attendance should be allowed or not?

If a belief is strong and solid enough, it can survive exposure to the outside world.
And, keep in mind, I have things like the Amish and Yoder v Wisconsin in mind. That does relegate children to basically property amd gives them an abysmal amoujt if choice until they are adults. Those lines of thinking create special exemptions for not vaccinating children, or even abusing them. In America it is an excess that must be reigned in as "freedom of religion" and "parental sovereignty" have been stretched to dangerous and destructive ends (no the wars to teach real, proper sex ed in school here).

To me, there are multiple arguments here, though.
As I mentioned, I'm a secularist. I want the treatment the same, regardless of religion. So I suspect in some cases I'd be strongly on your 'side'.
Baptism (as much as I have strong personal views on it) is not one of them. I'd argue strongly AGAINST any sort of legal acknowledgment, restriction or consideration.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Splashing water on a kid's head causes no harm in and of itself.

The harm comes over the longer term from being subjected to a childhood that ends up causing religious trauma syndrome in the adult the child becomes.

If you're talking about a general view on baptism, and the church, I completely agree. I have plenty of thoughts and issues with many, many religious behaviours, rituals and impacts.

However, my argument in this thread is a legal one. I don't want baptism to be a legal consideration.

My personal position - which it sounds like you agree with - is to not single out religion for special treatment good or band, and just legislate against the harm. If a religion inflicts no harm, it would have nothing to worry about.

We agree, depending on what you mean by 'legislate against the harm'. I'd treat their actions the same as I'd treat a secular organisation, in simple terms.

... though many religions do inflict a great deal of harm, and virtually all of them would lose out compared to the status quo if we took away their positive special treatment.

I'm fine with them losing out due to the removal of positive special treatment, and would (in broad terms) be an advocate for exactly that.
It's the same thought process that leads me to push back on the suggestion that baptism should be legislated against.
(Not suggesting you are saying that, just stating my general position and thoughts)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Indeed, consider the sheer volume of papal decrees. That's only a handful that I quoted - the list of medieval Popes issuing these "don't forcibly convert Jews" bulls is astoundingly long:


Sicut Judaeis - Wikipedia

Sicut Judaeis (Latin: "As the Jews") were papal bulls which set out the official position of the papacy regarding the treatment of Jews. The first bull by that name was issued in about 1120 by Calixtus II and served as a papal charter of protection to Jews. It was prompted by attacks on Jews by the First Crusade, during which over five thousand Jews were slaughtered in Europe. The bull forbade Christians, on pain of excommunication, from forcing Jews to convert, from harming them, from taking their property, from disturbing the celebration of their festivals, and from interfering with their cemeteries.

Following further attacks, further bulls by many popes reaffirmed the doctrine, including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).[1][2]
​

We must bear in mind that every date on that list of papal names signifies a slaughter, pogrom or mass assault upon Jews or Jewish worship that reached the attention of the Vatican and was disturbing enough for the Apostolic See to motivate the Pontiffs to issue the excommunication decrees on the perpetrators.

Things must have been bad for that to happen. There is genuine human suffering, death and misery behind those 'numbers'.

My post is here:


Forced baptism and torts

This was probably the darkest episode in papal - Jewish relations (Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council being the brightest) but it should not be seen as nullifying the papal efforts in past centuries - however limited or restricted by prejudice or supersessionist bias they might have been - to protect the lawful rights that the Jewish community possessed under canon law since the time of Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century.

There were always popes who treated Jews poorly and popes who treated Jews (relatively for their time) in a friendly and understanding manner. But the official canonical papal policy on the actual statutes was the one initiated by Gregory the Great. It always remained the actual official stace of the church, no matter the individual views of a given pontiff.

It's complicated, as they say. We're talking here about a 2,000 year relationship between two religious communities, both of which emerged from Second Temple Judaism in a state of antagonism over certain points of doctrine and practice.

The story, in terms of the Papacy, really begins in earnest with Pope Gregory the Great. He objected to the destruction, dispossession and descration of synagogues, as well as forced baptism:


Pope Gregory I and Judaism - Wikipedia

Pope Gregory I (c.540-604), also known as Gregory the Great, was influential in the formation of Catholic doctrine in relation to the Jews. He was responsible for a notable Papal Bull which spoke of a requirement for Christians to protect and defend the Jewish people, which became official doctrine. He publicly disapproved of the compulsory baptism of Jews, and insisted on their right to liberty of action, both in civil affairs and in their worship.

In various epistles, Gregory insisted on the right of Jews to "liberty of action, so far as the law permitted, both in civil affairs and in the worship of the synagogue" (Epistles 1.34; 2.6; 8.25; 9.38; 9.195; 13.15).

In Epistle 1.14, Pope Gregory expressly disapproved of the compulsory baptism of Jews[2]

June 591 : "Censure of Virgil, bishop of Arles, and Theodore, bishop of Marseille, for having baptized Jews by force. They are to desist.[3]

"For it is necessary to gather those who are at odds with the Christian religion the unity of faith by meekness, by kindness, by admonishing, by persuading, lest these...should be repelled by threats and terrors. They ought, therefore, to come together to hear from you the Word of God in a kindly frame of mind, rather than stricken with dread, result of a harshness that goes beyond due limits." [4]

November 602 : "Admonition to Paschasius, bishop of Naples, to ensure that the Jews are not disturbed in the celebration of their religious festivals." [5]

"TO PASCHASIUS, BISHOP OF NAPLES: Those who, with sincere intent, desire to lead people outside the Christian religion to the correct faith, ought to make the effort by means of what is pleasant, not with what is harsh, lest opposition drive afar the mind of men whom reasoning...could have attracted. Those who act otherwise...demonstrate that they are concerned with their own enterprises, rather than with those of God! Now, the Jews dwelling in Naples have registered a complaint with Us, asserting that certain people are attempting, in an unreasonable fashion, to restrain them from some of the solemnities connected with their own feast days, as it has been lawful for them to observe or celebrate these up to now, and for their forefathers from long ages past...For of what use is this, when...it avails nothing toward their faith and conversion?...One must act, therefore, in such a way that...they might desire to follow us rather than to fly from us...Rather let them enjoy their lawful liberty to observe and to celebrate their festivities, as they have enjoyed this up until now." [6]
​

Jewish History 590 - 599

590 POPE GREGORY THE GREAT

Formulated the official Papal policy regarding Jews; they were to be tolerated according to the regulations passed by the previous council. Gregory objected to forced baptism, but valued converts. This policy which was officially set in canon 60 of the council of Toledo(633), became the basis for the rejection of forced baptism by many Popes. Even anti- Jewish popes like Innocent III rejected forced baptism.​

Thank you again. Thank you especially for your post on the Jewish child, which I read thoroughly.

It is obvious to me that the Catholic Church has had two minds about this. Yes, as you say, the sheer volume of papal decrees cannot be denied. However, the fact that Catholics continued to defy these decrees, often with the knowledge of the Pope, also cannot be denied.

Presently we live in an age where the Catholic Church has greater respect for Jews. I am greatly thankful for Nostra Aetate. But not all Catholics accept this document as authoritative. Traditionalists sometimes still accuse us of deicide. What if they were to elect another traditionalist pope? Would Catholicism move back towards persecution?

 

[Vouthon]

Thank you again. Thank you especially for your post on the Jewish child, which I read thoroughly.

It is obvious to me that the Catholic Church has had two minds about this. Yes, as you say, the sheer volume of papal decrees cannot be denied. However, the fact that Catholics continued to defy these decrees, often with the knowledge of the Pope, also cannot be denied.

Presently we live in an age where the Catholic Church has greater respect for Jews. I am greatly thankful for Nostra Aetate. But not all Catholics accept this document as authoritative. Traditionalists sometimes still accuse us of deicide. What if they were to elect another traditionalist pope? Would Catholicism move back towards persecution?

Those are good questions.

Traditionalists make up a very small and heterodox minority of Catholics, mainly affiliated with organisations like the SSPX (either outright schismatic / excommunicated or on a precarious borderline 'greyzone' in thay respect). There are 1.3 billion Catholics in the world (accounting for 53% of the global Christian population) and of that huge number of people only around 1 million are "Trads" (as we call them):


Traditionalist Catholicism - Wikipedia

Estimates of the number of traditionalist Catholics vary. Catholic World News reported that "the Vatican" estimated the number of those served by the Fraternity of St Peter, the Society of St Pius X and similar groups at "close to 1 million".[67] Various sources estimate the adherents of the Society of St Pius X alone at 1 million.[68][69][70][71] No major religious survey has ever made an attempt to sample and enumerate subsets of Catholics by their position on a liberal to mainstream conservative to traditionalist and sedevacantist continuum, so any figures on the numbers of traditionalist Catholics must by necessity be more or less educated guesses.​

In Catholic terms (given that we're so numerous) that's absolutely tiny.

The important consideration here is that the vast majority of the world's Catholics are in communion with the Roman Pontiff and to be so, they need to accept the validity and doctrinally binding nature of every single one of the ecumenical councils. The New Testament teaches that:

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” . – Matthew 16: 13-20
​

This is especially so in the context of ecumenical councils, where all the world's bishops - the successors of the apostles, in union with the papal magisterium - 'bind' things pertaining to doctrine, canon and pastoral matters. The Holy Spirit is believed to act through the extraordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

Vatican II has 'bound' these decrees on earth and thus in heaven as well, including Nostra Aetate but also the Constitution Lumen Gentium:


Lumen gentium

In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) ​

Consider the first council, the one held in Jerusalem (circa. 50 CE). It made the monumental decision that Gentiles could join the Jesus movement without becoming proselytes (i.e. circumcised, Torah-observing) like Jewish Christians, yet be viewed as having been grafted into the Abrahamic covenant through faith in Jesus.

2,000 years later and counting, that Apostolic decree has not lost its force. What was 'loosed on earth' was 'loosed in heaven'.

Neither will Nostra Aetate lose its force. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. No future pontiff can annull the decisions of the Council:


Pope Francis says with magisterial authority: the Vatican II liturgical reform is ‘irreversible’


Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Whatever were our opinions about the Council's various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be whole hearted and without reserve; it must be willing and prepared to give them the service of our thought, action and conduct. The Council was something very new: not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrine must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed, be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit. (Paul VI to the Roman Curia, 23 April, 1966)

Although the Second Vatican Council took place in the 1960's, it has lost none of its relevance more than half a century later and should still be centre place in the consciousness of the Church. As St John Paul II wrote on the eve of the new millennium:

…there [in the Council] we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning​