Question about Forced Conversions

[Maccabee]

Hello everybody, I believe this is my first post so please forgive me if I have posted into the wrong thread. I have a question regarding the classical church position on forced conversions to christianity, and enforced religions.

I often hear protestants and some catholics argue for a secular liberal state on the basis that since god gave free will, governments should not enforce morality (banning pornography, etc). As humans should have the option to obey or deny god, as he granted us via free will. This argument seems odd to me, since after all by this logic you would not be morally wrong in setting a fifth of jack next to your recovering alcoholic friend. Since he should have the right to make his free choice whether to obey god or not. This also seems to raise question about the obvious parts where morality is regulated (murder, assault) even in a secular state, and why it's not in other cases (free speech, blasphemy.)

So anyway, I was wondering how this idea of a state not forcing catholic morality plays into the what appears to be the church position on forced conversions being wrong. If a state should not force the conversion to catholicism, should it also not be allowed to enforce moral teachings?
Any comments or flaws in my logic you could point out would be great. Thank you!

[Justin Martyr]

Hello everybody, I believe this is my first post so please forgive me if I have posted into the wrong thread. I have a question regarding the classical church position on forced conversions to christianity, and enforced religions.

I often hear protestants and some catholics argue for a secular liberal state on the basis that since god gave free will, governments should not enforce morality (banning pornography, etc). As humans should have the option to obey or deny god, as he granted us via free will. This argument seems odd to me, since after all by this logic you would not be morally wrong in setting a fifth of jack next to your recovering alcoholic friend. Since he should have the right to make his free choice whether to obey god or not. This also seems to raise question about the obvious parts where morality is regulated (murder, assault) even in a secular state, and why it's not in other cases (free speech, blasphemy.)

So anyway, I was wondering how this idea of a state not forcing catholic morality plays into the what appears to be the church position on forced conversions being wrong. If a state should not force the conversion to catholicism, should it also not be allowed to enforce moral teachings?
Any comments or flaws in my logic you could point out would be great. Thank you!

Strictly speaking, no one can be forced to convert and be baptized (the assent of faith must be free; this is de fide); however, the Church is able to use temporal punishments (historically, She preferred to use the state as her temporal tool) in order to make any validly baptized Christian adhere to their baptismal obligations, and to defend the baptized from outside threats. Put simply, the Church is a visible society with lawful jurisdiction over all the baptized, with coercive authority like a kingdom has.

The state in and of itself can not licitly coerce in matters of religion, as religion belongs to the spiritual sphere (which the state as no jurisdiction over in and of itself). But, the state has a moral duty to adopt the Catholic faith (just as all men do), and once converted the state must enforce temporal penalties on those the Church has judged to be heretics (or otherwise censured) and to fight those the Church judges to be enemies of the faith (an example is the crusades or expulsions of jews).

Here is a relevant canon from the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that those who have been thus baptized when children are, when they have grown up, to be questioned whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized, and in case they answer in the negative, are to be left to their own will; neither are they to be compelled in the meantime to a Christian life by any penalty other than exclusion from the reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent, let him be anathema."

And here's an error which was condemned Ex Cathedra by Pope Leo X in Exsurge Domine:

"[Condemned Proposition] 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

Pope Boniface VIII (my favorite Pope) also lays out the basic principles here: that the spiritual and temporal sphere are separate, but the temporal sphere (being a lower power) must be subject to the spiritual sphere (as it is a higher power). From Unam Sanctam:

"Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'

We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good.

Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1].

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

[Michael Wilson]

According to Catholic teaching the state or better said, the rulers of the state have the duty to confess the Catholic faith not only as individuals, but also as heads of the state. The state also has the duty to protect and defend and promote the Catholic religion and repress all that would impede men from not only attaining their temporal happiness, but also their eternal salvation.
Therefore the state could enforce the Sunday laws; prohibit bad literature; movies; plays etc. Not allow false religions to practice publicly or proselitize.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M. Stated:

The state in and of itself can not licitly coerce in matters of religion, as religion belongs to the spiritual sphere (which the state as no jurisdiction over in and of itself). But, the state has a moral duty to adopt the Catholic faith (just as all men do), and once converted the state must enforce temporal penalties on those the Church has judged to be heretics (or otherwise censured) and to fight those the Church judges to be enemies of the faith (an example is the crusades or expulsions of jews).

It most certainly can; the state has the duty to recognize and confess the true religion, just like any person. The state is but a collection of men. Just like God demanded of the Jewish Kings to repress idolatry and promote the true religion; so do Catholic rulers the same duty.
The exception is spelled out by Pius XII in Ci-Riesce, where conditions would become such that the Catholic rulers could licitly refrain from repression of evil, if a greater evil would result. St. Paul specifically stated of the Pagan rulers of his time that they were "God's ministers" and "ordained of God" "to execute wrath upon him that doth evil" for "There is no power but from God"
Romans 13.

[1] Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. [2] Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. [3] For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. [5] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
[6] For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.