Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/839

 TOLERATION

763

TOLERATION

pi'Ir of severity and that to the lawmakers of that iLn> toleration seemed only a weakness. "The pro- M ription of the Albigenses", says M. Guiraud, "was mil the efTeol of any ferocious hatred of misbelievers tiiip often attributed to the princes of that age. It uiis inspired b}' a consideration which has been hap- pily- defined by saying that heresy was at that time as niur-h a crime against social order as against re- liuicin" (Guiraud, "Chartulaire de Prouille", I, Iwxiv). Even so anti-Roman an historian as Hase -ums up the practical effects of the Lollard movement li\ saying "Wyclif produced no permanent religious iMipression upon the mass of the people. His teach- iiii; was misunderstood and caused a revolt of the pi iisants which resulted only in disaster" (Kirchen- uischichte, ISSti, p. 353). Again it was not. to be ixpoctcd that the first fruits of the Reformation would 1"' likely to mitigate the prevalent view of the mi.s- ' liirvous nature of heresy. The political and .social I '.lis to which the teaching of Luther and Calvin gave riM', ;vs well as the fanatical persecution of the Catho- hrs by so many of their followers, arc made clear be- >'ind dispute in such a work as that of Janssen's ■ History of the German People", to which the reader may be refen'ed. It was only natural that the con- ception of heresy as an attack, upon law and order as well as upon religion should be thereby deepened. Moreover in nearly every case where the reproach of intolerance has been cast against the Church, as for example, the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew (q. v.) or the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (see HrcrE- NOTs), the persecuting initiative has come far more from temporal rulers than from the Church or her represent.ativcs. On the other hand, the ferocity of the leading Reformers more than ecjualled that of the most fiercely denounced inquisitors. Even the "gen- tle" Melanchthon wrote to Calvin to congratulate him on the burning of Servetus. "The Church", he said, "both now and in all generations, owes and will owe you a debt of gi'.atitude." "Let there be no pity", Luther exhorted his followers, "it is a time of wrath not of mercy. . . . Therefore, dear Lord.s, let him who can slay, smite, destroy" (see Beard, "The Reformation and Modern Thought"). "John Knox", said Acton (History of Freedom, p. 44), "thought that every Catholic in Scotland ought to be put to death." Moreover in any case there is more to be iirged than a mere "tu quoque" argument. The Church has often given proof of her moderation when brought into relation with those whom .she was not logically com- pelled to treat as rebels. No better examples can perhaps be afforded than the history of the founda- tion of some of the colonies in the New World, and notably that of the Province of Maryland (q. v.).

Heroenrother. Catholic Church and Christian Stxjte (tr. London. 1876) : Devab, Kcj/ «/ the World's Profjress (London, 1906), 189-210; .\cTON, Hint, oj Freedom (reprinted London, 1907); Cbeighton. Persecution and Tolerance (London. 189.5); DoLLlNGER. Akademische Yortrdqe, III (Leipzig, 1891), 274-301. These la-st three works ean only hi- rerommended with many re&erves. .See also bibL of article Inquisition.

Heubekt Thurston.

Toleration, HKLioiors. — Toleration in general signifies patient forbeanmce in the presence of an evil which one is unable or unwilling to prevent. By re- ligious toleration is understood the magnanimous indulgence which one shows towards a religion other than his own, accompanied by the moral determina- tion to leave it and its adherents unmolested in pri- vate and public, although internally one views it with complete disapproval as a "false faith". Since, in this article, we are to treat toleration only from the standpoint of principle, leaving its historical develop- ment to be discussed in a speci.il article, we shall con- sider: I. The Idi'a of Toleration; II. The Inadmissi- bility of Theoretical Dogm.atical Toleration; III. The Obligation to Show Practical Civil Toleration; IV. The Necessity of Public Political Toleration.

I. The Idea op Toleration. — Considered in the abstract, the general idea of toleration contains two chief moments: (a) the existence of something which is regarded as an evil by the tolerating subject; (b) the magnanimous determination not to interfere with the evil, but to allow it to run its course without molesta- tion. Viewed under the former aspect, toleration is akin to patience which also connotes an attitude of forbearance in the face of an evil. Patience, how- ever, is rather the endurance of physical sufferings (o. g. mi.sfortune, sickness), toleration of ethical evils. When not an evil but some real good (e. g. truth or virtue) is in question, toleration gives way to interior approbation and external promotion of such good. No one will say: "We must show toleration towards science or patriotism", for both these objects are recognized by all as laudable and desirable. A sec- ond idea akin to toleration is connivance (connivenlia, dissimulatio), which means the deliberate closing of one's eyes to evil conditions so as not to be obhgecl to take measures against them. The distinction be- tween connivance and toleration lies in the fact that the latter not only closes its eyes to the tolerated evil, but also openly concedes it complete liberty of action and freedom to spread. It is indeed in this deliberate granting of liberty that the characteristic quality of toleration lies. For the intolerant person also re- gards what opposes him as an evil and a source of annoyance; but, it is only by combating it overtly or .secretly, that he shows his intolerance. Not all in- tolerance, however, is a vice, nor is all tolerance a virtue. On the contrary, an exaggerated tolerance may easily amount to a vice, while intolerance keep- ing within just limits may be a virtue. This state- ment is substantially in agreement with Aristotle's definition that virtue in general holds the right mean between two extremes, which are as suih both vices. Thus the intolerance shown by parents towards grave faults in their children is an obligation impo.sed by conscience, although, if it be carried to the extreme of cruelty, it degenerates into a vice. On the other hand, exceP8i\-e toleration towards an evil becomes under certain circumstances a vice, for example, when secular rulers look with folded arms upon publico im- morality.

The above remarks show that manifold distinctions are necessary before we are in a posit ion to develop the true principles which underlie re.al toleration. View- ing our subject partly from the ethical and rehgious, and p.artly from the political standpoint, we find three distinct kinds of tolerance and intolerance, which refer to entirely different domains and thus rest on different principles. As regards religious tolerance, which alone concerns us here, we must distinguish especially between the thing and the person, the error and the erring. According as we consider the thing or the per- son, we have theoretical, dogmatic, or practical civic tolerance, or intolerance. Di.stinct from both is j)olit- ical tolerance, since the distinction between the indi- vidu;d and the St;vte must al.so be considered. We must in(|uire somewhat more clo.sely into these three kinds of tolerance and their opposiles before con.sider- ing the principles w'hich underlie each.

(1) By theoretical dogmatic tolerance is meant the tolerating of error as such, in so far as it is an error; or, as Lezius concisely exi)res,ses it, "the recognition of the relative and subjective right of error to existence" ("Der Toleranzbegriff Lockes u. PufTendorfs", Leip- zig, 1900, p. 2). Such a tolerance can only be the outcome of an attitude which is indifferent to the right of truth, and which places truth and error on the same level. In philo.sophy this attitude is briefly termed scepticism, in the domain of religion, it de- velops into religious indifferent ism which declares that all religions are equ.illy true and good or equally false and bad. Stich an internal and external indifference towards all religions, especially the Christian rehgion,