"Any Human Power"

[Michael Wilson]

J.M. Stated:

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.

D.H. States:

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.

If man has the right from God to the free practice of religion, then logically he has the "right" to sin. As the practice of a false religion is a sin. And logically one is forced to agree as you did:
J.M.

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.

But you are acting against your nature as a free agent when you sin; that is why Our Lord said that those who sin are the slaves of sin.
Leo XIII "Libertas"

This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: "Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin."(3) "Everything," he says, "is that which belongs to it a naturally. When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, `Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.' "(4) Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term "wise man" was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue.

Therefore to say that because man has a free will and therefore can use it to embrace error and sin, as D.H. Does, is to promote "freedom of perdition":
Pius IX "Quanta Cura"

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

So Pius IX condemns the error that Civil society has no duty towards religion or that it should treat all religions the same or repress those who violate the Catholic religion. And Liberty of Conscience and worship is every man's personal right.
So he also condemns that opinion which you are defending, which holds that the state has no power or right of interfering in religious matters. Which is what Vatican II taught in D.H. 
And J.P. II in his address to the Bishops of India during their visit "ad limina" 23 June, 1979 ("Religious Liberty" Fr. Pierrre Marie O.P. pg. 8  ) leaves no doubt that the "religious liberty" of D.H. Is the same as that of the "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man":

The Second Vatican Council..declares that the human person 'has the right to religious liberty' (D.H. #2). In this document the Council feels itself united to the millions of people in the world who adhere, in all its practical applications, to article 18 of the United Nations' universal declaration of the rights of man, which affirms: 'Everyone has the right to liberty of thought, of conscience and of religion".

He also stated the same thing in his address to the XXIV World Day of Peace, Jan. 1, 1991

Today the many peoples who make up the one human family are increasingly concerned that freedom of conscience, which is essential for the freedom of every human being, be recognized in practice and safeguarded by law. I have already devoted two Messages for the World Day of Peace to various aspects of this freedom, which remains fundamental for peace in the world. In 1988 I proposed some reflections on religious freedom. It is essential that the right to express one's own religious convictions publicly and in all domains of civil life be ensured if human beings are to live together in peace.
So if "freedom of conscience" and "religious freedom" are to be "safeguarded by law"; that means that J.P. II believes that the states do have the power to all the free practice of all religions and also the right to suppress those who would deny this right.
And J.P. II is proclaiming this so called "freedom of Conscience" in spite of the condemnation of Pius IX of said freedom in Q.C.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M. Stated:

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.

King James and Queen Elizabeth were attempting to force Catholics and non-Conformists to convert to the Church of England.
Suarez did not teach and neither has any other Catholic theologian taught that the state has no power in matters religious.
In fact Immortale Dei, which you quoted earlier states the contrary:
First, "All authority come from God:

But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."(1)

So this pretty much refutes the "any human power argument".
Next the duty of the state towards Religion:

So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honour the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favour religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety.... In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race.

So far from the state being neutral or indifferent to religion; the care of religion is within is scope and power.

[Michael Wilson]

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?

The Church has always condemned forced conversions.
The Church did not execute baptized non-Catholics; but Catholics that left the faith adopted opinions that were dangerous for the salvation of their souls and others, and after being given a chance to retract and repent from their errors, refused to do so.
This is neither against human dignity; because human dignity demands that man adhere to the truth and act morally; which excludes the adherence to false religions and their evil morality.  Nor is it immoral, as the Church has the right to require Catholics to be faithful to their Baptismal promises; and also to safeguard the faith and morals of their members against contagion.
Your view is contrary to the teaching and practice of the Church up to recent times, and is heretical according to Pope Leo X in "Exurge Domine" posted on this thread.

[AlNg]

Your view is contrary to the teaching and practice of the Church up to recent times, and is heretical according to Pope Leo X in "Exurge Domine" posted on this thread.

I am sorry to hear that.

[Michael Wilson]

D.H. On the right not only to embrace and practice any so called religion (there is only one Religion), and to freely propagate its errors in public and society:

The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. 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.
There is a further consideration. The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction,...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.

Pope Pius VI, condemned the French Revolution's Declaration of the Universal Rights of Man, which contained the following two articles:

Let us recall here the two articles in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" of 1789 at which this condemnation is more particularly directed:
Art. 10: Nobody may be disturbed about his opinions, even his religious opinions, provided their expression does not upset the public order established by law.
Art. 11: The free communication of thought and of opinion is one of the most precious rights of man: therefore every citizen may freely speak, write and publish, so long as he is not responsible for the  abuse of this liberty, in cases determined by the law.

Pius VI

"The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men. But what more senseless idea could be thought up?..

[Michael Wilson]

The following three articles in the 1814 Constitution:

Article 5. Every one may profess his religion with equal freedom, and shall obtain for his worship the same protection.
Article 7.
    The ministers of the catholic, apostolic and Roman religion and those of the other christian sects alone receive stipends from the royal treasury.
Article 8.
    Frenchmen have the right to publish and to have printed their opinions, while conforming with the laws, which are necessary to restrain abuses of that liberty.

Pope Pius VII, "Post Tam Diuturnas", to the Bishop of Troyes, on the proposed new French Constitution, which contained the same freedom of religions and of propagation of said:

But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."

[Michael Wilson]

D.H.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society....2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. 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.

Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos", August 15, 1832
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/encyclicals/Greg16/G16MIRAR.HTM

4. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

D.H.

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.

Mirari Vos:

15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again.

[Michael Wilson]

Pope Francis on Fredom of Conscience & Worship & the Change of Church teaching at Vatican II
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/40925/pope-francis-freedom-of-conscience-in-danger-in-christian-countries

"Today, we Christians have the danger that some governments will take away our freedom of conscience, which is the first step toward freedom of worship," Pope Francis said March 31......"For example, today we have removed the death penalty from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Three hundred years ago, heretics were burned alive," he said.
"The Church has grown in moral conscience, respect for the person, and the freedom of worship," Francis explained. "We too must continue to grow."There are people, Catholics, who do not accept what the Second Vatican Council said about freedom of worship, freedom of conscience," Pope Francis said. "We have this problem."....."Freedom of conscience and religious freedom – which is not limited to freedom of worship alone, but allows all to live in accordance with their religious convictions – are inseparably linked to human dignity," Pope Francis said.

Freedom of Conscience i.e. The right of every man and  inseparably linked to human dignity.
Saint J.P. II on Freedom of Conscience:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5474

....the widespread aspiration that all men and women be guaranteed equal dignity in sharing material goods in effectively enjoying spiritual goods, and consequently in enjoying the corresponding inalienable rights.
During these last decades the Catholic Church has reflected deeply on the theme of human rights, especially on freedom of conscience and of religion;...........This inner reflection, even if it does not result in an explicit and positive assertion of faith in God, cannot but be respected in the name of the dignity of each one's conscience, whose hidden searching may not be judged by others....A second and no less fundamental element is the fact that religious freedom is expressed not only by internal and exclusively individual acts, since human beings think, act and communicate in relationship with others; "professing" and "practicing" a religious faith is expressed through a series of visible acts, whether individual or collective, private or public, producing communion with persons of the same faith, and establishing a bond through which the believer belongs to an organic religious community;