Rights and Religious Liberty

[Quiddity]

What is your understanding between how the Church sees rights and religious liberty now vs how it saw it prior to Vatican 2?

It's never an overnight change obviously, but there was certainly a change.

Before:

Leo XIII LIBERTAS (1888 AD)

"24. A like judgment must be passed upon what is called liberty of teaching. There can be no doubt that truth alone should imbue the minds of men, for in it are found the well-being, the end, and the perfection of every intelligent nature; and therefore nothing but truth should be taught both to the ignorant and to the educated, so as to bring knowledge to those who have it not, and to preserve it in those who possess it. For this reason it is plainly the duty of all who teach to banish error from the mind, and by sure safeguards to close the entry to all false convictions. From this it follows, as is evident, that the liberty of which We have been speaking is greatly opposed to reason, and tends absolutely to pervert men's minds, in as much as it claims for itself the right of teaching whatever it pleases - a liberty which the State cannot grant without failing in its duty. And the more so because the authority of teachers has great weight with their hearers, who can rarely decide for themselves as to the truth or falsehood of the instruction given to them."

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

After:

Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae (1965)

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.

Dignitatis humanae

How do you mesh both of them?

@Vouthon

 

[Quiddity]

......nada....

 

[Quiddity]

Going once....

Going twice...

 

[Quiddity]

@Vouthon

....and for those interested.

 

[Vouthon]

Hello @Quiddity

Apologies for not getting back to you on this!

I actually forgot amid all the social disruption of the lockdown, so please excuse me on that front. I find that I've had less time at home - using zoom meetings online for work - than I ever did at the actual office (its bizarre).

This is an intensely complex area of discussion. I'm not sure how best to structure it.

You are no doubt aware of the early patristic teachings on religious liberty from Tertullian and Lactantius, as well as St. John Chrysostom's use of the parable of the Tares to teach that the 'weeds' must be allowed to grow with the wheat until the end of time, which he employed as an argument against - not simply non-compulsion of the unbaptized - but against the capital punishment of heresy as well.

In the fourth century, a bishop named Priscillian had created a large movement in Spain which went against the established church and taught "heresy". Emperor Maximus decided to issue the death penalty against Priscillian and his disciples. Saint Martin of Tours travelled to the Imperial court of Trier to free these unfortunate people from the secular jurisdiction of the emperor. Martin prevailed upon the emperor to spare the life of the heretic Priscillian

However when Martin had departed, the emperor ordered Priscillian and his followers to be beheaded in AD 385. Martin was incensed and refused to remain in communion with the emperor. Saint Ambrose of Milan and Pope Siricius supported Saint Martin and said they too would excommunicate him for his position regarding the accused heretics.

See:


Priscillian - Wikipedia

Pope Siricius, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours protested against the execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution. Pope Siricius censured not only Ithacius but the emperor himself. On receiving information from Maximus, he excommunicated Ithacius and his associates. On an official visit to Trier, Ambrose refused to give any recognition to Itacius, "not wishing to have anything to do with bishops who had sent heretics to their death".[9] Before the trial, Martin had obtained from Maximus a promise not to apply a death penalty. After the execution, Martin broke off relations with the bishop of Trier and all others associated with the enquiries and the trial, and restored communion only when the emperor promised to stop the persecution of the Priscillianists.[9]​

A stand-off ensued between the Empire and the Church. St. John Chrysostom later wrote that executing heretics was an "inexpiable crime".

I have read that this was the first ever recorded case of Christians executing other Christians for heresy. And as you can see, blame must be attributed to the State and not the Church - which did all it could to try and stop the executions.

The Church changed its attitude between 1184-1253. In this period, the Church decided to collaborate with States that had declared heresy as a capital offence tantamount to treason by handing condemned heretics over to civil authorities for execution, a practice that contemporary popes since Vatican II have apologised for as a deviance from the way of Christ.

In the ninth century A.D. though - long before this - we then have Pope Nicholas I - in a letter to the Bulgars - stressing that the confession of faith must be purely voluntary in nature, such that no coercion can be used against pagans to make them believe.

There's a lot more to unpack here - scholastic theologians such as Francisco Suarez in the 17th century, for example, who contributed hugely to the development of Aquinas's thought in this area - before one even touches upon the modern magisterium, with Pope Leo XIII.

I can provide references for most of the major documents pertaining to the church's doctrine on this front from the church fathers, to the medieval pontiffs and scholastics, to the early modern.

 

[Vouthon]

Pope Nicholas I's "Responses to the Bulgars" is the best place to start for a sort of "summary" of the general doctrinal position of the Church near the close of the first millennium:


The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866


The key paragraph:


Chapter XLI.

Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force, proving that what they know in vain, is wrong: [cf. Jer. 1:16] namely that, although they are people with capable intellects, they nevertheless adore works of their own hands and senseless elements, or rather they bow their necks and sacrifice to demons. For as the apostle teaches: We know that an idol is nothing, but whatever the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons.[I Cor. 8:4; 10:20]...Yet, violence should by no means be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For everything which is not voluntary, cannot be good; for it is written: Willingly shall I sacrifice to you,[Ps. 53:8] and again: Make all the commands of my mouth your will,[Ps. 118:108] and again, And by my own will I shall confess to Him.[Ps. 27:7] Indeed, God commands that willing service be performed only by the willing. But if you ask about what should be judged concerning perfidious persons of this sort, listen to the apostle Paul who, when he wrote to the Corinthians, says: Why indeed is it my business to judge concerning those who are outside? Do you not judge concerning those who are inside? God will judge those who are outside. Remove the evil from yourselves.[I Cor. 5:12-13] It is as if he said: Concerning those who are outside our religion, I shall judge nothing, but I shall save them for the judgment of God, Who is going to judge all flesh.
​

So, much for those outside the church's spiritual jurisdiction (i.e. Jews, Muslims, pagans) but what did Gregory think about 'heretics'?

Elsewhere in the letter, he states that it would be legitimate for Boris if he decided remove these people from his service and friendship:

But if they do not listen to you, you should neither take food nor have any communion at all with them, but rather remove them from your service and friendship (familiaritas) as if they were foreign and polluted, in order that, once pierced by such confusion, they may be converted with God's inspiration to Him Who is the true and not the false God, creator and not created, unmade but maker of all​

This appears to be the only "oppression" he permits. Again, he "hopes" this will lead them to change their mind but he asks Boris to tolerate them.

What's more interesting, is how he deals with 'apostasy'.

The original rebels against the Khan (in this situation) had all "left the faith" - to the extent that they tried to overthrow a Christian King and reinstate paganism. The Pope pleaded for their lives - all of them:

Chapter XVIIII.

What rightly should be done about those who have risen up to kill the king, the venerable laws which we sent to you in writing shall adequately teach you. This matter nevertheless remains within the judgment of the king, who should forgive the sinner not merely once, but seven times seventy times,[cf. Mt. 18:22] in accordance with what the Lord commanded of Peter in the holy Gospel.[cf. Lk. 7:47] For the person whom one forgives more, loves more, and, as the Gospel teaches: The king would have forgiven his servant a debt of ten thousand talents, i.e. many monstrous sins, if the servant himself had wished to forgive his fellow servant a debt of one hundred denarii, i.e. minor sins.[cf. Mt. 18: 24-33]​

The men who lifted arms, the parents, the children...Every one of them. The pope said they should have been allowed to live, as follows:


The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866

Now you desire to know whether you have contracted any sin on account of those who were deprived of their lives. Clearly what you did not escape without sin nor could have happened without your fault, was that a child who was not privy to their parents' plot nor is proven to have born arms against you, was slaughtered along with the guilty, although innocent...You also should have acted with greater mildness concerning the parents who were captured, that is, [you should have] spared their lives for the love of the God Who delivered them into your hands...But you also could have saved those who died while fighting, but you did not permit them to live nor did you wish to save them, and in this you clearly did not act on good advice​

So he was not in favour of the execution of 'apostates'. Indeed, in a different section of the epistle, he explicitly criticises the death penalty's usage in general:

Chapter XXV.

You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this. Now then, you are asking us, what we think about this practice. One should look through the laws concerning this matter. Nevertheless, far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,[cf. Acts 9:1] later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.[cf. II Cor. 12:15] In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found. [cf. Rom. 7:6] And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death.
​

And this was, of course, in the ninth century A.D. (well over a thousand years ago).

 

[Vouthon]

As I noted above, prior to the 12th century, the Church did not allow states to suppress 'heresy' using violent intimidation or execution. Such punishments had many ecclesiastical opponents, so such a system did not exist in Catholic theology.

To provide you with an example, I noted earlier how in 350 A.D. the first execution for heresy took place (it was orchestrated by secular authorities) but the decision to execute the person was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church, by the Pope, St Ambrose and St Martin of Tours. Most theologians saw punishment for 'heresy' as therapeutic not punitive - Christians believed that you could not force somebody to change their mind. God had given them freewill after all. To elucidate the viewpoint of this period, St. John Chrysostom (died AD 407) one of the greatest of the Church Fathers wrote, "To kill a heretic is to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime".

In terms of free confession itself, we have this from a church council of the period:

"Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith"

- (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633)​

"...Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition..."

- (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090 –1153)


Later on, Waso, the Bishop of Liege urged against using force upon the Carthari, arguing much as St. John Chrysostom had seven centuries earlier. Peter Cantor, the most learned man of this age, expressed the prevailing sentiment within the Church leadership: “Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists [apostates] are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, ‘A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid,’ he certainly did not say, ‘Kill him.’ Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death’” (De investigatione Antichrist 3:42). St. Bernard put down the law, in direct opposition to the mobs, “Fides suadenda, non imponenda.” Men are to be won to the Faith, not by violence, but by persuasion. He censured the princes, arguing that “the obstinate were to be excommunicated and if necessary, kept in confinement for the safety of others” (O’Brien, p. 15).

The views of Peter Cantor and St. Bernard were ratified by a whole series of synods during that time: Rheims (1049) under Leo IX, Tolouse (1119) under Callistus II, and the Lateran Council of 1139.

 

[Quiddity]

@Vouthon - Allow me some time to respond. This is indeed a complex topic.

Hope all is well.

 

[Quiddity]

@Vouthon

When time permits, can you please provide a source for this bit:

St. John Chrysostom wrote that executing heretics was an "inexpiable crime".

I couldn't find it.