Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/845

 TOLERATION

769

TOLERATION

I.ulher, Calvin, Melunchtlion, liulzer, Wenceslaus, Sturm, Strigel, Matthias Coler, and other Protestant li ailtrs. We may, tlierefore, rightly conclude that ili( harsh forms of i)unishment are to be referred partly to the fact that the medieval heretics were a menace to the community, and partly to the excessive strictness of the ancient penal code.

(.5) It follows from what has been said that the custom of burning lieretics is really not a question of justice, but a question of civilization. History shows that even in an age otherwise highly civilized certain especiaUy detestable criminals are severely dealt with. A regrettable illustration is found in the intro- duction of torture into the trial of heretics by Inno- cent IV in 1252. Here again the influence of the ancient Roman code is discernible, since it also was accustomed from the earliest times to employ torture not as a punishment, but simply as a regular means of extracting the truth from the accused. That, de- spite its promised "cvangeHcal liberty ", the Reform- ation introduced no softening of manners, the contin- uation of torture and the prevalence of witch-burnings even in the eighteenth century clearly show. Tor- ture was first abolished in Prussia (1745) by Frederick the Great; (he last witch was burned in Switzerland in 1783. We cannot read without a shudder how in England high treason, which term included the pro- fession of the Cathohc Faith, was punished with hanging and the tearing out of the still throbbing heart from the living body. The law against mendi- cancy passed in 1572 under Queen Elizabeth ordained that the harmless offence of begging was to be pun- ished with severe scourging, with perforation of the right ear with red hot iron, and, if the offence were repeated, with death (cf. G. Kassel, "Geschichtliche Entwickelung des Deliktes der Bettelei", Brcslau, 189S, p. 37). In France no less cruelty was shown. When Henry IV' was as.sassinated by Ravaillac on 14 May, 1610, the unfortunate criminal was merci- lessly tortured; he was pierced with red-hot jjincers, molten lead was poured over the hand which com- mitted the murder, and finally he was torn to pieces by four horses. Exactly the same punishment, even to the smallest details, was meted out to the half- witted Damiens, although he merely scratched the libertine Louis XV with a pen-knife (cf. Pilatus, "Der Jesuitismus", Ratisbon, 1905, pp. 183 sqq.). After the horrors of the French Revolution the methods of punishment were gradually softened, and during the course of the nineteenth century humanitarian views won the victory everywhere (see PuNiSHirEXT). It rests with mankind to decide whether the penal systems of the future are to be disgraced by cruelty and barbari.sm or not. The coming generations must see that the return of inhuman penal ordinances shall be made impossible by the refinement of morals, the deepening of ethical culture, the philanthropic training of the young, and (he impression of the mild and gentle charac(eristics of Christ on civil, national, and religious life. Since the secularized State re- nounced its union with the Church, and excluded heresy from the category of penal offences, the Church has returned to her original standpoint, and contents herself again with excommunication and other spiritual penalties (irregularity, ineligibility for ecclesi- astical prebends, etc.), with which the modern State no longer associates (as in the Middle Ages) any penal or civil actions.

IV. The Neces-sity for Public Political Toi^ ERATioN. — Since the St.ate may not pose either as the mouthpiece of Divine Revelation or as the teacher of the Christian religion, it is clear that in regard to matters of religion it can adopt a much more broad- minded position than the Church, whose attitude is strictly confined by her teaching. The ethical per- missibility, or rather the duty, of political tolerance and freedom of rehgion is determined by historical XIV.— 49

presuppositions and concrete relations; these impose an obligation which neither State nor Church can disregard. We will first consider the State in itself, and then the specifically Catholic State.

(1) The State is under obligation to make external conditions subserve the public good, and to protect against arbitrariness or molestation all individuals and corporations within its territory in the enjoy- ment of their personal, civic, pohtical, and religious rights. This is in an especial manner the function of the constitutional State, which has slowly developed since the end of the eighteenth century. The Church has always combated the idea that the winning of new members and the recovery of the apostate per- tain to the State. Christ entrusted, not the State, but the Church with the announcement of His Gospel to the whole world. Not even ( he medieval "religious State", whose constitution we shall describe in greater detail below, undertook to act as bearer of a super- natural revelation or as preacher and judge of the Cathohc Faith. The intimate connexion of both powers during the Middle Ages was only a passing and temporary phenomenon, arising neither from the essential nature of the State nor from that of the Church. The Church is free to enter into a more or less close association with the State, but she can also endure actual separation from the State, and, given favourable circumstances, may even prosper under such conditions, as for example in the United States of North America. For the State also certain condi- tions may prevail which render a close union with the Church inadvisable or indeed quite impossible. When, for example, several religions have firmly established themselves and taken root in the same territory, nothing else remains for the State than either to exercise tolerance towards them all, or, as conditions exist to-day, to make complete religious liberty for individuals and religious bodies a principle of government.

The final conversion of the old religious State into the modern constitutional State, the lamentable defection of the majority of states from the Catholic Faith, the irrevocable secularization of the idea of the state, and the coexistence of the most varied religious beliefs in every land have imposed the principle of state tolerance and freedom of belief upon rulers and parliaments as a dire neccssit}' and as the starting- point of political wisdom and justice. The mixture of races and peoples, the immigration into all lands, the adoption of international laws concerning colo- nization and choice of abode, the economic necessity of calling uium the workers of other lands, etc., have so largely changed the religious map of the world during the last fifty years that propositions 77-79 of the Syllabus pubhshed by Pius IX in 1864 (cf. Denzinger, op. cit., 1777-79), from which enemies of the Church are so fond of deducing her opposition to the granting of equal political rights (o non-Catholics, do not now apply even to Spain or the South American republics, to say nothing of countries which even then possessed a greatly mixed popnlalion (e. g. (Jermany). Since the requisite conditions for the (section of new theo- cratic states, whether Catholic or Protestant, are lacking to-day and will probably not lie realized in the future, it is evident on the basis of hard facts that religious liberty is the only possible, and thus the only rea.sonable, stale principle. If, in those lands where she still enjoys a privileged position as state Church (e. g. Italy and Spain), (he Catholic Church would not allow herself to be driven from this jjosition without a protest, she has not only a right, but is even under obligation to offer this protest. For a justly acquired right should not be surrendered in silence. In this matter also the Church does only what is done by Protestant princes, who steadfastly adhere to Protestantism as the state religion (e. g. the King of England). But the priceless asset of