"Any Human Power"

[Michael Wilson]

"The Church is a "human power"?; No, I do not.

Because Dignitatis Humanae is only addressing the right to religious liberty in civil society, which is a right to freedom from "...coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power..

There is no "right to religious liberty in civil society"; that would mean that men have the right to sin; but as Pius XII stated: "error has no rights".
Even if the Council was speaking of a purely civil right, it would have to make clear that this is not a right, but a toleration.
But the Council stated on the contrary this right of Religious Liberty is based on the very nature of man as he was created:

Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

Therefore to deny this religious freedom, is beyond the power of governments or of the Church, since that would be an injury to the "very nature of man as he was created and the very order established by God for human life"; therefore inevitably the Church has been wrong for 1958 years in denying that "error has no rights" and holding that the civil authorities have the right and duty to repress evil and evil doers. 

However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.

And the Council is not only referring to individual freedom, but to freedom of false religions:

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.

Which means that governments do not have the right to either suppress evil-doers or even groups whose end is evil and sinful.
But St. Paul tells us that even the Pagan Roman governments had a duty to suppress evil and evil-doers, in themselves and directly from God: (Rom. 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....[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..... [6] For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

The Church denied that the state had any right to suppress the Catholic religion; and Pius XII in his Christmas messages in addressing the issue of religious freedom is careful to speak of the subjective right of religious freedom i.e. Man as a creature has the duty and therefore the right to worship God; however objectively man only has the right to worship the true God and in the true way. There is no right to worship either a false God or in a false way.

[Justin Martyr]

"The Church is a "human power"?; No, I do not.

Because Dignitatis Humanae is only addressing the right to religious liberty in civil society, which is a right to freedom from "...coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power..

There is no "right to religious liberty in civil society"; that would mean that men have the right to sin; but as Pius XII stated: "error has no rights".

Once again, thus is not a right to sin. The CCC explicitly rejects this understanding as do the Acts of the Council. This is a right to not be coerced by a power that lacks coercive jurisdiction over supernatural goods. This is hardly novel, as it was taught by Suarez

Even if the Council was speaking of a purely civil right, it would have to make clear that this is not a right, but a toleration.

Toleration is, by definition, a right not to be coerced by someone who lacks jurisdiction over you. Again; if you went and fornicated, you had no right to commit that sin, but you do have a right to not be held at gun point by me telling you to repent.

But the Council stated on the contrary this right of Religious Liberty is based on the very nature of man as he was created:

Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

Of course it's based on man's nature. You have a right to not be coerced by me when you fornicate in the hypothetical situation above because of your nature as a free agent.

Therefore to deny this religious freedom, is beyond the power of governments or of the Church, since that would be an injury to the "very nature of man as he was created and the very order established by God for human life"; therefore inevitably the Church has been wrong for 1958 years in denying that "error has no rights" and holding that the civil authorities have the right and duty to repress evil and evil doers.

This only follows if I agree with your person centered reading. I don't, and neither did the Council Fathers in the Acta of the Council.

However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.

This is referring to the native power of the state. This is absolutely Leonine:

11. In very truth, Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles unrestrained authority in regard to things sacred, together with the genuine and most true power of making laws, as also with the twofold right of judging and of punishing, which flow from that power. "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth: going therefore teach all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."(12) And in another place: "If he will not hear them, tell the Church."(13) And again: "In readiness to revenge all disobedience."(14) And once more: "That... I may not deal more severely according to the power which the Lord bath given me, unto edification and not unto destruction."(15) Hence, it is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man's guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion; of  teaching all nations; of spreading the Christian faith as widely as possible; in short, of administering freely and without hindrance, in accordance with her own judgment, all matters that fall within its competence.

And the Council is not only referring to individual freedom, but to freedom of false religions:

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.

This does not follow, since these communities don't have a right against the coercive power of the state qua communities, but rather qua collection of individuals

Which means that governments do not have the right to either suppress evil-doers or even groups whose end is evil and sinful.

This does not follow, as even this right against the coercive jurisdiction of the state is within due limits. And even these "due limits" are not naturalist in nature, but correspond to the Catholic definition of the common good:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

But St. Paul tells us that even the Pagan Roman governments had a duty to suppress evil and evil-doers, in themselves and directly from God: (Rom. 13)

Indeed it does. It has been set by God to govern over temporal goods. Supernatural goods are outside of its intrinsic jurisdiction and fall under the government of the Church. The Church can delegate authority to the state when the state acts as her brachium seculare, but Dignitatis Humanae is only addressing the state in its native jurisdiction and not in regard to delegated jurisdiction by the Church.

The Church denied that the state had any right to suppress the Catholic religion; and Pius XII in his Christmas messages in addressing the issue of religious freedom is careful to speak of the subjective right of religious freedom i.e. Man as a creature has the duty and therefore the right to worship God; however objectively man only has the right to worship the true God and in the true way. There is no right to worship either a false God or in a false way.

I'm not denying any of this. Neither does Dignitatis Humanae, as it affirms this in the first paragraph.

The Church did more than tell the state not to coerce Catholics historically, though. Historically the Church denied the state the right to exercise coercive power against the Jews and other infidels, within due limits. The only exceptions made were for the protection of the common good. The apostolic letter of Pope St. Gregory the Great to Paschasius of Naples being a particularly notable example of this policy.

[james03]

...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.

This is the poison of Vat II and why it should be put on the Index, and a token printed copy of the documents publicly burned.

The ambiguous "Before all else" should be replaced with "only".  If the Dictator James I comes to power, and orders all mosques, hindu temples, and synagogs razed to the ground, that is perfectly fine.  You can argue on the prudential nature of it, but error has no right.

However coercion to the Faith is prohibited.

[Justin Martyr]

However coercion to the Faith is prohibited.

Ah, another pre-conciliar innovation which lead us to the present day mess.

Here is the opinion of St. Thomas, which was made dogmatic at Trent in the XIV Canon on Baptism.

Art. 8: Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?

OBJ 1: It would seem that unbelievers ought by no means to be compelled to the faith. For it is written (Mt. 13:28) that the servants of the householder, in whose field cockle had been sown, asked him: "Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?" and that he answered: "No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it": on which passage Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Matth.): "Our Lord says this so as to forbid the slaying of men. For it is not right to slay heretics, because if you do you will necessarily slay many innocent persons." Therefore it seems that for the same reason unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith.

OBJ 2: Further, we read in the Decretals (Dist. xlv can., De Judaeis): "The holy synod prescribes, with regard to the Jews, that for the future, none are to be compelled to believe." Therefore, in like manner, neither should unbelievers be compelled to the faith.

OBJ 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) that "it is possible for a man to do other things against his will, but he cannot believe unless he is willing." Therefore it seems that unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith.

OBJ 4: It is said in God's person (Ezech. 18:32 [*Ezech. 33:11]): "I desire not the death of the sinner [Vulg.: 'of him that dieth']." Now we ought to conform our will to the Divine will, as stated above (FS, Q[19], AA[9],10). Therefore we should not even wish unbelievers to be put to death.

On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 14:23): "Go out into the highways and hedges; and compel them to come in." Now men enter into the house of God, i.e. into Holy Church, by faith. Therefore some ought to be compelled to the faith.

I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.

On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.

Reply OBJ 1: Some have understood the authority quoted to forbid, not the excommunication but the slaying of heretics, as appears from the words of Chrysostom. Augustine too, says (Ep. ad Vincent. xciii) of himself: "It was once my opinion that none should be compelled to union with Christ, that we should deal in words, and fight with arguments. However this opinion of mine is undone, not by words of contradiction, but by convincing examples. Because fear of the law was so profitable, that many say: Thanks be to the Lord Who has broken our chains asunder." Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord's words, "Suffer both to grow until the harvest," must be gathered from those which precede, "lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it." For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) "these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man's crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken."

Reply OBJ 2: Those Jews who have in no way received the faith, ought not by no means to be compelled to the faith: if, however, they have received it, they ought to be compelled to keep it, as is stated in the same chapter.

Reply OBJ 3: Just as taking a vow is a matter of will, and keeping a vow, a matter of obligation, so acceptance of the faith is a matter of the will, whereas keeping the faith, when once one has received it, is a matter of obligation. Wherefore heretics should be compelled to keep the faith. Thus Augustine says to the Count Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "What do these people mean by crying out continually: 'We may believe or not believe just as we choose. Whom did Christ compel?' They should remember that Christ at first compelled Paul and afterwards taught Him."

Reply OBJ 4: As Augustine says in the same letter, "none of us wishes any heretic to perish. But the house of David did not deserve to have peace, unless his son Absalom had been killed in the war which he had raised against his father. Thus if the Catholic Church gathers together some of the perdition of others, she heals the sorrow of her maternal heart by the delivery of so many nations."

The astute reader will notice that St. Thomas has a jurisdiction centered view of religious liberty. The non-baptized can't be coerced by the Church (save for if it's needed to defend the faithful, aka the "due limits" of DH) because they fall outside of her jurisdiction. The Church only has jurisdiction over the baptized. The baptized, on the other hand, can be compelled even by "physical compulsion" (torture) or even threatened with death to be made to adhere to the faith. Why? Because they are under the coercive temporal and spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which it can delegate to the secular power to execute heretics.

Of course, both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Ven. Pius XII seem to contradict this in Immortale Dei and Mystici Corporis Christi respectively. So there are apparent contradictions to deal with in the Church's teachings on religious coercion well before Vatican II.

[james03]

nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.

Vatican II does not support this view of St. Thomas.

[james03]

However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious...

This is novel and heretical.

Of course, both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Ven. Pius XII seem to contradict this in Immortale Dei and Mystici Corporis Christi respectively.

How so?

[Justin Martyr]

nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.

Vatican II does not support this view of St. Thomas.

If you'd paid attention to the thread, Vatican II doesn't even address this view of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is talking about the coercive jurisdiction of the Church and Confessional States, Vatican II is addressing the coercive power of the state as it is in itself, apart from the Church. This is readily apparent in the chief part of the declaration, which defines the right to religious liberty as being a right to not be coerced by a human (as in, set over temporal goods) power. The Church, however, is a Divine Power set over divine goods; and confessional states are delegated this divine power and jurisdiction by the Church to coerce as the Church sees fit.

[Justin Martyr]

However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious...

This is novel and heretical.

This is taught by Suarez in regard to the native power of the state, along with other Roman theologians of that period. The logic is really simple. The state is set by God over temporal goods. Religion is a supernatural good since the coming of Christ. The Church is the coercive power God has set over supernatural goods. Ergo, the state has no native right to coerce in matters of rellgion, but must be delegated coercive jurisdiction by the Church. This is readily apparent in the treatment of heretics in medieval times, as the entire trial and conviction process was performed by the Church who then commanded the state to execute the heretic (if they failed to recant) as an agent of the Church.

Just because trads are completely ignorant of Church teaching on this subject beyond 19th century prooftexts from Encyclicals doesn't mean its novel.

Of course, both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Ven. Pius XII seem to contradict this in Immortale Dei and Mystici Corporis Christi respectively.

How so?

Here is the material on it I've presented in the past. No one engaged with it, of course. Those who are most vocal about Post-Conciliar contradiction tend to be very antsy about even acknowledging apparent pre-conciliar contradictions.

And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will."

Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe.[198] Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians[199] who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the "faith without which it is impossible to please God"[200] is an entirely free "submission of intellect and will."[201] Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See,[202] that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act.

VS.

...
[Condemned Proposition]: 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
...
No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

Therefore we, in this above enumeration, important as it is, wish to proceed with great care as is proper, and to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further in the Lord's field as harmful thornbushes. We have therefore held a careful inquiry, scrutiny, discussion, strict examination, and mature deliberation with each of the brothers, the eminent cardinals of the holy Roman Church, as well as the priors and ministers general of the religious orders, besides many other professors and masters skilled in sacred theology and in civil and canon law. We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): "I will be with you to the consummation of the world"; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....

Canon XIV:
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.

Ven. Pope Pius XII's and Pope Leo XIII's teachings about it being immoral to coerce others to make an act of faith are (or rather appear to be) prima facie contradictory to the infallible decree of Exsurge Domine that it is the will of the Holy Spirit for the Church to burn (and threaten with being burnt) heretics who refuse to repent and make an act of faith and the infallible canon of Trent which anathematizes those who say the Church can't employ temporal punishments to coerce the baptized to fulfill their baptismal obligations and make an act of faith.

Pope Leo XIII and Ven. Pius XII also prima facie contradict Saint Thomas (which is the basis of Leo X's and Trent's teachings) on this point:

Art. 8: Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?
...
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 14:23): "Go out into the highways and hedges; and compel them to come in." Now men enter into the house of God, i.e. into Holy Church, by faith. Therefore some ought to be compelled to the faith.

I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.

On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion [at the time of Saint Thomas, this meant torture], that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.

This is taught by Suarez in regard to the native power of the state, along with other Roman theologians of that period. The logic is really simple. The state is set by God over temporal goods. Religion is a supernatural good since the coming of Christ. The Church is the coercive power God has set over supernatural goods. Ergo, the state has no native right to coerce in matters of rellgion, but must be delegated coercive jurisdiction by the Church

You are conflating  the true religion with false "religions". I.D. Speaks that the state has no power over the Catholic Church; but it has the duty to protect and promote the Catholic faith and to repress error and evil doers. False religions and evil and sinful practices can be licitly suppressed by the state, in fact it is their duty to do so.

[size-10pt]        Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.[/size]

No injury is done to the human person or to the very order established by God for human life if the free exercise of religion is denied in society. In fact as St. Paul stated, God gave governments power to suppress evil doers. All false religions are evil doers, in that by their false doctrines and sinful practices, they lead men to perdition.

Of course it's based on man's nature. You have a right to not be coerced by me when you fornicate in the hypothetical situation above because of your nature as a free agent

You do not have the right to fornicate, and if I stop you from doing it, I would not be violating your nature.
See the following example from the O.T.

[6] And behold one of the children of Israel went in before his brethren to a harlot of Madian, in the sight of Moses, and of all the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle. [7] And when Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from the midst; of the multitude, and taking a dagger, [8] Went in after the Israelite into the brothel house, and thrust both of them through together, to wit, the man and the woman in the genital parts. And the scourge ceased from the children of Israel: [9] And there were slain four and twenty thousand men. [10] And the Lord said to Moses:

[11] Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel: because he was moved with my zeal against them, that I myself might not destroy the children of Israel in my zeal. [12] Therefore say to him: Behold I give him the peace of my covenant.....

God is so pleased with Phinees depriving these two people of their right to fornicate, that He stopped the scourge and rewarded Phinees.

[Justin Martyr]

J.M.

This is taught by Suarez in regard to the native power of the state, along with other Roman theologians of that period. The logic is really simple. The state is set by God over temporal goods. Religion is a supernatural good since the coming of Christ. The Church is the coercive power God has set over supernatural goods. Ergo, the state has no native right to coerce in matters of rellgion, but must be delegated coercive jurisdiction by the Church

You are conflating  the true religion with false "religions". I.D. Speaks that the state has no power over the Catholic Church; but it has the duty to protect and promote the Catholic faith and to repress error and evil doers. False religions and evil and sinful practices can be licitly suppressed by the state, in fact it is their duty to do so.

That's not what Suarez taught. He denied that King James had the authority to coerce both Catholics and the non-catholic recusants. What you're articulating here is the gallican view of the State's native authority, which is contrary to the teachings of Pope Leo XIII. All coercive authority in the religious order (false religion or not) belongs to the Church.

Not that this addresses my argument anyway, since I'm not denying that false religions are an evil that ought to be suppressed; rather I am denying that the state has any native coercive authority over religious matters beyond the requirements of the temporal common good (which is what the state has a native duty to uphold and has been given authority by God to uphold). The state has as much native authority to execute protestants as I do, namely none since such authority only belongs to the Church as something native and intrinsic. She can delegate such authority to confessional states, but they do not possess it in and of themselves by nature. And, both I and Dignitatis Humanae agree that states have a duty to be Catholic and to support the Catholic faith.

[size-10pt]        Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.[/size]

No injury is done to the human person or to the very order established by God for human life if the free exercise of religion is denied in society. In fact as St. Paul stated, God gave governments power to suppress evil doers. All false religions are evil doers, in that by their false doctrines and sinful practices, they lead men to perdition.

Injury is done because any exercise of coercive punishment without corresponding coercive jurisdiction is in itself injurious and contrary to the order God has established. Moreover, such action prevents the human person from freely fulfilling their duty of coming to the faith and to the Catholic Church. In any case, your reasoning here proves too much, as you're not only condemning Vatican II but also Pope St. Gregory the Great and Pope (St.) Innocent III

Gregory to Paschasius, etc.

Those who with pure intent desire to bring to the true faith aliens from the Christian religion should study kindness, and not asperity; lest such as reason rendered with smoothness might have appealed to should be driven far off by opposition. For whosoever act otherwise, and under cover of such intention would suspend people from their accustomed observance of their own rites, are proved to be intent on their own cause rather than on God's. To wit, the Jews dwelling in Naples have complained to us, asserting that certain persons are endeavouring unreasonably to drive them from certain solemnities of their holidays, so that it may not be lawful for them to observe the solemnities of their festivals, as up to this time since long ago it has been lawful for them and their forefathers to keep and observe them. Now, if this is true, these people appear to be taking trouble to no purpose. For what is the use, when even such long unaccustomed prohibition is of no avail for their faith and conversion? Or why should we lay down rules for the Jews as to how they should observe their ceremonies, if we cannot thereby win them? We should therefore so act that, being rather appealed to by reason and kindness they may wish to follow us, and not to fly from us; and that proving to them from their own Scriptures what we tell them, we may be able, with God's help, to convert them to the bosom of Mother Church.

Wherefore let your Fraternity, so far as may be possible, with the help of God, kindle them to conversion, and not allow them any more to be disquieted with respect to their solemnities; but let them have free licence to observe and celebrate all their festivals and holidays, even as hitherto both they and their forefathers for a long time back have kept and held them.

We decree that no Christian shall use violence to compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known, he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead....

Of course it's based on man's nature. You have a right to not be coerced by me when you fornicate in the hypothetical situation above because of your nature as a free agent

You do not have the right to fornicate, and if I stop you from doing it, I would not be violating your nature.
See the following example from the O.T.

[6] And behold one of the children of Israel went in before his brethren to a harlot of Madian, in the sight of Moses, and of all the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle. [7] And when Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from the midst; of the multitude, and taking a dagger, [8] Went in after the Israelite into the brothel house, and thrust both of them through together, to wit, the man and the woman in the genital parts. And the scourge ceased from the children of Israel: [9] And there were slain four and twenty thousand men. [10] And the Lord said to Moses:

[11] Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel: because he was moved with my zeal against them, that I myself might not destroy the children of Israel in my zeal. [12] Therefore say to him: Behold I give him the peace of my covenant.....

God is so pleased with Phinees depriving these two people of their right to fornicate, that He stopped the scourge and rewarded Phinees.

It's very telling that you left out the first five verses of Numbers XXV

25:1  And Israel at that time abode in Settim, and the people committed fornication with the daughters of Moab,
25:2  Who called them to their sacrifices. And they ate of them, and adored their gods.
25:3  And Israel was initiated to Beelphegor: upon which the Lord being angry,
25:4  Said to Moses: Take all the princes of the people, and hang them up on gibbets against the sun: that my fury may be turned away from Israel.
25:5  And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Let every man kill his neighbours, that have been initiated to Beelphegor.

St. Phinees was acting as just executioner under the delegated authority and jurisdiction of the civil power, in fulfillment of the decree of St. Moses the Lawgiver (which he himself was commanded to decree by God, who has absolute jurisdiction and authority over all things).

It should be noted that the fornication referred to in Numbers XXV is primarily idolatry (though sexual fornication follows from the spiritual fornication). So this is mainly an example of coercion in the religious sphere. This doesn't effect my argument at all anyway, since prior to the coming of Christ religion was a natural good which fell under the jurisdiction of the temporal power. It was the coming of Christ which transformed religion from a natural good into a supernatural good which transcends the natural order, outside the native jurisdiction of the state. God established the Church over supernatural goods as the sole coercive power (potestas). All of this is taught by Suarez. It also has has no bearing on Dignitatis Humanae, as it was teaching about the rights of men and the native coercive jurisdiction of the State as they both exist in the present day, after the coming of Christ.

In any case, a private person who lacks coercive temporal  jurisdiction has no right to kill a fornicator for the sake of the common good, and the fornicator has a natural right not to be coerced by said private person, as the Church has always taught that such coercive authority falls under the jurisdiction of the public authority (which is the civil power).

[AlNg]

The baptized, on the other hand, can be compelled even by "physical compulsion" (torture) or even threatened with death to be made to adhere to the faith. Why? Because they are under the coercive temporal and spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which it can delegate to the secular power to execute heretics.

I don't agree with torturing or executing  baptized non-Catholics in an attempt to force them to adhere to the Roman Catholic faith. My personal opinion is that torturing or executing people is against human dignity and is immoral. Do you say that this view is heretical?

[james03]

This is taught by Suarez in regard to the native power of the state, along with other Roman theologians of that period.

Suarez teaches that the State can't inhibit the acts of heretics?  I'd like to see the cite for that.

That's not what Suarez taught. He denied that King James had the authority to coerce both Catholics and the non-catholic recusants.

Because error has no right.  You can't compel Catholics to take part in heretical ceremonies/practices.  This in no way forbids a Catholic Confessional State from supressing heretical sects and non-Christian sects from practicing their false religions.  Which is a big problem, because Vat. II came up with this heresy:

However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious...

[Michael Wilson]

It should be noted that the fornication referred to in Numbers XXV is primarily idolatry (though sexual fornication follows from the spiritual fornication). So this is mainly an example of coercion in the religious sphere. This doesn't effect my argument at all anyway, since prior to the coming of Christ religion was a natural good which fell under the jurisdiction of the temporal power. It was the coming of Christ which transformed religion from a natural good into a supernatural good which transcends the natural order, outside the native jurisdiction of the state. God established the Church over supernatural goods as the sole coercive power (potestas). All of this is taught by Suarez. It also has has no bearing on Dignitatis Humanae, as it was teaching about the rights of men and the native coercive jurisdiction of the State as they both exist in the present day, after the coming of Christ.

The children of Israel were committing fornication with the daughters of Moab and these were leading them into idolatry. But in the case of Phinees, he was stabbing those who at that moment were committing fornication. Which shows that God did not reprehend Phinees for violating some "inalienable" right. There is no right to sin. Again "error has no rights". The Ten Commandments prohibited adultery, and other sins and were punished death.
The Jewish religion was of a supernatural origin as it was ordained directly by God and contained supernatural revelation and it was salvific, as it required faith in the supernatural messiah.
The state has no power over the Catholic religion but it does have power to legislate in favor of the Catholic religion and suppress even prohibit false religions.
The quotes from the Popes on the Jews, refer to forcible conversion, which the Church never has approved of.
On the Jews not being molested; again the Jews were sometimes allowed to celebrate their ceremonies, and sometimes they were not; but nowhere did the Popes decree that the Jews had the right to practice their religion or the right not to be impeded in celebrating it.

[Michael Wilson]

Pius XII

yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe.

Pius XII is speaking of "forced conversions", not about the "right not to be impeded in the public practice of any religion".
Exurge Domine, is speaking of those who state that heretics cannot be executed by the state.
Kind of bombs D.H.
Trent, is speaking of those who were baptized Catholics as infants and then when they are adults; condemns those who say that they cannot be compelled to practice the Catholic faith. Again this argues against D.H.  And this is what St. Thomas states also.

[Michael Wilson]

D.H. Stated:

       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.

J.M. Responds:

This does not follow, since these communities don't have a right against the coercive power of the state qua communities, but rather qua collection of individuals

I don't see how you can say that D.H. Doesn't state that religious communities have the right not to be impeded in their public teaching and practice of their faith. It follows logically from the premise that all men have the right to practice their religion in private or in public alone or with others:

This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

D.H. #4 Re-affirms this right:

4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.