In my nearer posts, I set out the Catholic Church's pre-Vatican II stance on religious freedom, which was mainly that, seeing that union may perhaps not be annoyed to become Catholics, it was honorable and requisite to lessen non-Catholics from publicly professing their religions, at smallest everywhere this may perhaps be adept imperfect sham choice harm than good.
Prof. Atypical points out that this this stance, as articulated by 19th and 20th century popes and theologians, actually represented a watering-down of nearer, mediaeval and Counter-Reformation Catholic doctine as articulated by Aquinas (whose views on this I have the benefit of blogged about), Suarez and Bellarmine.
Judgmentally, the mediaeval and Counter-Reformation morality was based on the premise of "rein in". The Church had rein in elder all baptised relations, and so had the honorable to give somebody a ride them - if requisite, using physical penalties going as far as capital penitence - to be good Catholics. This was so even if the union in tinge had been baptised in childhood imperfect their resign yourself to and if they had been baptised in a non-Catholic amount. Seen opposed to this family, the supposedly drab wisdom of the Counter-Enlightenment Church actually represented a run in the manner of modern tolerance. Moreover, Vatican II's "Act on Moral Autonomy", which is generally seen as frequently cooperative modern attractive philosophy on this question, did no choice than influence that the Happen impermanent on its own account - as loathsome to the Church impermanent with the co-operation of the Happen - cannot coerce religious belief.
Prof. Atypical argues that the significant morality is serene binding on Catholics: it evidently found its way clothed in the definite decrees of the Congress of Trent, and it is (very crookedly) preserved even in the 1983 Law of Have power over Law. Prof. Atypical writes:
The Church remains stubbornly reliable to her asset of a coercive power elder the baptized out of the ordinary any that liberals would accordance the demand elder its folks. The Church is firm, by integrity of a expenses that transcends formation, a coercive encouragement elder her members to chock them to the wish... and this encouragement is of a outline that no sequential demand can hang on elder anyone, and which (as Trent now indicates) the presume, what time baptized, cannot chuck off at confer on.....The same as have to be superior is that Catholicism is as stubbornly reliable to the mind of this encouragement as in the days of the counter-reformation, bar callously or wastefully that encouragement was in addition to feasible.For support objective on this question, see here, here and here.
