"'...land-gifts to the Church.'"
-Poul Anderson, Mother Of Kings (New York, 2003), Book Four, Chapter XVI, p. 347.
Thus, the Church cannot charge for confessions but could, at least then, set penances that included a donation to the Church. I understand that one reason for clerical celibacy is to ensure that clergy do not have heirs, thus that any wealth accumulated by them remains in the Church. An Irish banker once told me that his clients often left complicated wills in which some of their money went to the Church. He added that people cannot be prevented from doing what they want with their money. No? The Church can tell people what not to do in other areas of their lives.
Meanwhile, Gunnhild tries to mobilize her bishop and his colleagues against Haakon. What I called his just settlement of the religious question she calls his promise that:
"'...they may henceforward carry on their devil worship unhindered.'" (p. 348)
The bishop agrees that:
"'This is - a grave matter indeed.'" (ibid.)
Freedom of worship, unhindered religious practice, is a grave matter? The Church, at least then, made enemies unnecessarily.
7 comments:
We should consider, although I SERIOUSLY doubt Gunnhild was genuinely thinking this way, that for someone who truly believes he's following the ONE True Faith, allowing people to practice other religions is allowing them to damn themselves. The faithful may thus feel they have a moral imperative to "save" others from the harm religious freedom would do them.
In contrast to which view:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." (John Stuart Mill, *On Liberty*, Chapter 1)
David,
I think we each have a responsibility to question and criticize our own beliefs, especially beliefs in which we were indoctrinated. Babies could have been switched at birth, thus brought up as Muslim instead of Evangelical etc. Who can say that, if he had not been brought up as Catholic etc, he would have converted to it in adulthood? How long would a belief survive on adult conversions alone? People need to think about all this before forcing their arbitrary beliefs on others.
Paul.
Hi, David!
We have a moral imperative to try to PERSUADE people that it is wrong to worship false gods. But NOT to force them to do so. I would qualify this a bit by saying we would have to intervene if pagans tried to sacrifice humans to their gods (as the Aztecs customarily did and the Scandinavians from time to time). I think John Stuart Mill would agree on the necessity of banning human sacrifices.
Sean
Sean,
Yes, since Mill said that force should be used to prevent harm to others.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly! Controlling and penalizing crime is one of the most basic functions of the state, any state.
Sean
Sean and Paul:
Oh, certainly. I quoted Mill not merely or even mostly to present both sides of the argument, but as perhaps the most eloquent statement the view I FAVOR. I regret if I didn't make that clear enough.
Hi, David!
I certainly was not disagreeing with JS Mill here. Altho when it comes to British political philosophers I prefer Edmund Burke over Mill.
I would stipulate the state has to step in penalize people who behave in ways that MIGHT harm others. An easy example being persons driving cars after drinking enough to become impaired and a danger to others.
Sean
Post a Comment