Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. —St. Jerome
Started by wandering_cath, November 04, 2022, 06:08:26 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteFourth proposition: It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, "Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed. These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. Hence in the Chaldaic paraphrase it is rendered, "Whosoever sheds blood before witnesses, his blood shall be shed by sentence of the judge." And, Judas says, "Bring her out that she may be burnt." Here the patriarch Judas, as head of a family, condemned an adulteress to death by fire.In the law of Moses there are many precepts and examples. "He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death." And Moses himself, Josue, Samuel, David, Elias, and many other very holy men put many to death. And as for "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword," ^ these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority, as St. Augustine correctly explains, and St. Cyril also. Besides, "If thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister." St. Paul says that the sword is given by God to rulers to punish evildoers, therefore, if like men are found in the Church, why may they not be put to death?Secondly, it is proved from the testimony of the Fathers. Innocent I., being asked whether it was lawful for a magistrate who had been baptized, to punish by death, answered that it was entirely lawful. St. Hilary says that it is certainly lawful to kill in two cases, if a man is fulfilling the duty of a judge, or if he is using a weapon in his own defense. St. Jerome says, "To punish murderers, and sacrilegious men, and poisoners is not a shedding of blood, but the administration of law." St. Augustine, "Those who, endowed with the character of public authority, punish criminals by death, do not violate that commandment which says, Thou shalt not kill."Lastly, it is proved from reason ; for it is the duty of a good ruler, to whom has been entrusted the care of the common good, to prevent those members which exist for the sake of the whole from injuring it, and therefore if he cannot preserve all the members in unity, he ought rather to cut off one than to allow the common good to be destroyed ; just as the farmer cuts off branches and twigs which are injuring the vine or the tree, and a doctor amputates limbs which might injure the whole body.To the argument of the Anabaptists from "An eye for an eye etc.." there are two solutions. One, that the Old Law, since it was given to imperfect men, allowed the seeking for revenge, and only forbade that the retaliation be greater than the injury; not that it is lawful to seek revenge, but because it is less evil to seek it in moderation than inordinately; besides, Christ, Who instructed more perfect men, recalled this permission. Thus says St. Augustine, and St. Chrysostom and St. Hilary are of the same opinion regarding this passage ; but since retaliation is prohibited, "Seek not revenge," and, we read, "He that seeketh to revenge himself, shall find vengeance from the Lord," we shall, indeed, reply correctly with St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure and some others, in their commentary on the third Sentence of Peter Lombard, when Our Lord says: "You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.," He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance; just as from the fact that the law said, "Thou shalt love thy friend," they infer that it is lawful to hate enemies; but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: "But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc."But it should be observed that when He says, "not to resist evil," just defense is not prohibited, but retaliation; for Christ commands not to strike him who strikes you, as Theophylactus rightly teaches. But he is said to strike who strikes to injure, not he who strikes to protect himself; and, briefly, revenge, not defense, is forbidden, according to "Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved," that is, not avenging yourselves. For thus it is in the Greek, whence it goes on to say: "But set aside wrath, for it is written: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." But neither is revenge forbidden absolutely, if, indeed, it is sought from a lawful judge and for a good end, either because there is hope that the malefactor will be reformed by this punishment, or because his malice can be kept in check and restrained in no other way, and he will continue to do evil if he is allowed to go unpunished; therefore, what is forbidden is only that revenge which private citizens wish to take on their own account, and which they seek from a judge through the desire of harming an enemy, and of satisfying their own ill-will and hatred.
Quote from: wandering_cath on November 04, 2022, 06:08:26 PMI'd like to know your opinion on the admissibility of the death penalty and the changes promoted to the Catechism.
Quote from: Geremia on November 04, 2022, 07:49:32 PMQuote from: wandering_cath on November 04, 2022, 06:08:26 PMI'd like to know your opinion on the admissibility of the death penalty and the changes promoted to the Catechism.Have you read Ed Feser's By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment?
Page created in 0.059 seconds with 20 queries.