Canon law declared even coerced baptism valid if force was applied

Evidence

Christians might not eat with them (Jews ‘attacked’ Christianity by their rules of purity in food, and in this Muslims ‘judaised’), or live with them, or invite them as guests; the only exception made was for missionaries outside the borders of Christendom. Muslims who became Christian and relapsed were pardonable only if they had been dragged bodily to what would then have been an invalid baptism; if they had only been forced by, for example, beating, the baptism was valid. Christians who left property by will to Muslims were pursued by posthumous anathemas; cases involving Christians had always to be tried in Christian courts, and there Christians were always to be preferred as witnesses to Jews and Muslims. These might not be provided with arms. It was, of course, one of Frederick II’s offences to have employed mercenaries from Africa, but the Kings of Aragon expected normal military service from their faithful Muslim subjects. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 665

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the medieval canon-law doctrine of what made a coerced baptism valid — a surprisingly precise legal standard about the nature of coercion.