Council against Council

[son_of_angels]

I was reading the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council when something caught my eye.

[quote]68. Jews appearing in public

A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, [b]are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress [/b]-- seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.

69. Jews not to hold public offices

[b]It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians[/b]. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians. If, however, anyone does commit such an office to them let him, after an admonition, be curbed by the provincial council, which we order to be held annually, by means of an appropriate sanction. Any official so appointed shall be denied commerce with Christians in business and in other matters until he has converted to the use of poor Christians, in accordance with the directions of the diocesan bishop, whatever he has obtained from Christians by reason of his office so acquired, and he shall surrender with shame the office which he irreverently assumed. [b]We extend the same thing to pagans. [/b]

[/quote]

How can this be reconciled with the Catechism, which states that no form of exclusion on the basis of religion should be allowed by a state.

[Brother Adam]

Oh, I don't know. The same reason that people are not considered harlots for not wearing head coverings. The same reason folks born into Protestantism are not considered formal heretics, and are considered Christian brethren. Societies and peoples change.

[Guest JeffCR07]

this can be reconciled precisely because what is being discussed is not an issue of faith and morals, but an issue of prudential judgement.

Given the culture and climate of the times, the Council felt it prudent to institute the above quoted rule. However, the cultural setting has changed and what may at one time have been thought to be prudent no longer is.

We aren't talking about dogma, doctrine, or anything of the like, we are just talking here about a matter of church governance, and that can change depending on the people making the decisions.

[qfnol31]

It's a practice of discipline, not doctrine.