PERSECUTION
703
PERSECUTION
physics that he specially labouretl, particular atten-
tion being paid to spots and faculx-. For observation
in illustration of these an ingenious method was de-
vised and patiently pursued. Father Perry was, more-
over, much in request as a lecturer. He died while
actually performing the duty assigned him in conduct-
ing an eclipse expedition in the pestilential group mis-
named the "Isles de Salut". The observation on this
occasion was exceedingly successful, and Father
Perry, though already severely indisposed, managed to
perform his part without interruption. As soon as it
was over, however, he became alarmingly worse, and
having got on board H.M.S. "Comus", which had
been detailed for the service, he died at sea five days
later, 27 Dec, 1889. He was buried in the Catholic
cemetery at Georgetown, Demerara.
An account of his life and scientific works by Cortie is pub- lished by the Catholic Truth Society.
John Gerard.
Persecution. — General. — Persecution may be defined in general as the unlawful coercion of another's liberty or his unlawful punishment, for not every kind of punishment can be regarded as persecution. For our purpose it must be still further limited to the sphere of religion, and in that sense persecution means unlawful coercion or punishment for religion's sake.
The Church has suffered many kinds of persecution. The growth and the continued existence of Christian- itj' have been hindered by cultured paganism and by savage heathenism. And in more recent times agnos- ticism has harassed the Church in the various states of America and Europe. But most deplorable of all persecutions have been those that Catholicism has suffered from other Christians. With regard to these it has to be considered that the Church herself has aj)- pealed to force, and that, not only in her own defence, but also, so it is objected, in unprovoked attack. Thus by means of the Inquisition (q. v.) or religious wars she was herself the aggressor in many instances dur- ing the Middle Ages and in the time of the Reforma- tion. And even if the answer be urged that she was only defending her own existence, the retort seems fairly plausible that pagan and heathen powers were only acting in their own defence when they prohibited the spread of Christianity. The Church would there- fore seem to be strangely inconsistent, for while she claims toleration and liberty for herself she has been and still remains intolerant of all other religions.
In answer to this objection, we may admit the fact and yet deny the conclusion. The Church claims to carry a message or rather a command from God and to be God's only messenger. In point of fact it is only within recent years, when toleration is supposed to have become a dogma, that the other " champions of Revelation " have abandoned their similar claims. That they should abandon their right to command allegiance is a natural consequence of Protestantism ; whereas it is the Church's claim to be the accredited and infallible ambassador of God which justifies her apiiarent inc( insistency. Such intolerance, however, is not the same as persecution, by which we understand the unlawful exercise of coercion. Every corporation lawfully constituted has the right to coerce its subjects within due limits. And though the Church exercises that right for the most part by spiritual sanctions, she lias never relinquished the right to use other means. Before examining this latter right to physical coercion, there must be introduced the important dis- tinction between pagans and Christians. Regularly, force has not been employed against pagan or Jew: "For what have I to do to judge them that are with- out?" (I Cor., V, 12); see Jews and Judaism: Jwla- ism and Church Legislation.
Instances of compulsory conversions such as have occurred at different periods of the Church's history must be ascribed to the misplaced zeal of autocratic
individuals. But the Church does claim the right to
coerce her own subjects. Here again, however, a dis-
tinction must be made. The non-Catholic Christians
of our day are, strictly speaking, her subjects; but in
her legislation she treats them as if they were not her
subjects. The "Ne temere", e. g., of Pius X (1907),
recognizes the marriages of Protestants as valid,
though not contracted according to Catholic condi-
tions: and the laws of abstinence are not considered
to be binding on Protestants. So, with regard to her
right to use coercion, the Church only exercises her
authority over those whom she considers personally
and formally apostates. A modern Protestant is not
in the same category with the Albigenses or Wyclif-
ites. These were held to be personally responsible for
their apostasy; and the Church enforced her authority
over them. It is true that in many cases the heretics
were rebels against the State also; but the Church's
claim to e.xercise coercion is not confined to such cases
of social disorder. And what is more, her purpose was
not only to protect the faith of the orthodox, but also
to punish the apostates. Formal apostasy was then
looked upon as treason against God — a much more
heinous crime than treason against a civil ruler, which,
until recent times, was punished with great severity.
(See Apostasy; Heresy.) It was a poisoning of the
life of the soul in others (St. Thomas Aquinas, II-II,
Q. xi, articles 3, 4.)
There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Church claimed the right to use physical coercion against formal apostates. Not, of course, that she would exer- cise her authority in the same way to-day, even if there were a Catholic State in which other Christians were personally and formally apostates. She adapts her discipline to the times and circumstances in order that it may fulfil its salutary purpose. Her own cltil- dren are not punished by fines, imprisonment, or other temporal punishments, but by spiritual pains and penalties, and heretics are treated as she treated pagans : "Fides suadenda est, non imponenda" (Faith is a matter of persuasion, not of compulsion) — a sentiment that goes back to St. Basil ("Revue de I'Orient Chraicn", 2nd series, XIV, 1909, 38) and to St. Ambrose, in the fourth century, the latter applying it even to the treatment of formal apostates. It must also be remembered that when she did use her right to exercise physical coercion over formal apostates, that right was then universally admitted. Churchmen had naturally the ideas of their time as to why and how penalties should be inflicted. Withal, the Roman In- quisition (q. V.) was very different from that of Spain, and the popes did not approve the harsh proceedings of the latter. Moreover, such ideas of physical coer- cion in matters spiritual were not peculiar to Catholics (see Toleration). The Reformers were not less, but, if anything, more, intolerant (see Inquisition). 1/ the intolerance of Churchmen is blamable, then that of the Reformers is doubly so. From their own stand- point, it was unjustifiable. First, they were in revolt against the e.st.alilished authority of the Church, and secondly they could hardly use force to compel the unwilling to conform to their own principle of private judgment. With this clear demarcation of the Re- former's private judgment from the Catholic's author- ity, it hardly serves our purpose to estimate the rela- tive violence of Catholic and Protestant Governments during the times of the Rcforiiiution. And yet it is well to remember that the methods of the maligned Inquisition in Spain and Italy were far less destructive of life than the religious wars of France and Germany. What is, however, more to our purpose is to notice the outspoken intolerance of the Protestant leaders; for it gave an additional right to the Church to appeal to force. She was punishing her defaulting subjects and at the same time defending herself against their at- tacks.
Such compulsion, therefore, as is used by legitimate
