As an ecumenical expression of solidarity with our recent “A Catholic Call to Abolish the Death Penalty,” German Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann has issued the following brief statement (translated by Dr. Steffen Lösel), which I have been requested to post here at Catholicmoraltheology.com. Following his statement, I have provided a short comment.
Dr. Moltmann’s Statement:
The unjust killing of Troy Davis has filled the world with pain and abhorrence. This is not the America, which is respected in the world and which is praised for its democratic humanitarianism.
As Christians, we receive our salvation from the justifying righteousness of God. We reject all forms of retributive justice. We reject the death penalty in the name of God.
Democratic governments are governments of the people. Just as the people are not allowed to lie, steal, or kill, neither are governments. We Germans know, how cruelly dictatorships lie, steal, and kill. We reject the death penalty in the name of democratic humanitarianism.
Jürgen Moltmann
A Comment from Tobias Winright:
We are grateful to Dr. Moltmann for sharing this statement with us. His more theological paragraph about the connection between our reception of “our salvation from the justifying righteousness of God” and our rejection of “all forms of retributive justice” echoes especially our quotation in our “A Catholic Call” from Protestant theologian Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics, vol. 3, part 4, pp. 442-443, cited by John Howard Yoder in The Death Penalty Debate: Two Opposing Views of Capital Punishment, p. 132). For us Catholics, similar reflections were offered by Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, who is the Preacher to the Papal Household, in some of his Lenten homilies in 2004 and 2005. For example, in his third Lenten sermon from 2005, Fr. Cantalamessa (explicitly drawing on the work of literary-critic turned anthropologist René Girard) preached that “Jesus unmasks and tears apart the mechanism of the scapegoat that canonizes violence, making himself innocent, the victim of all violence…. Christ defeated violence, not by opposing it with greater violence, but suffering it and laying bare its injustice and uselessness…. ‘One died for all.’ The believer has another reason–Eucharistic–to oppose the death penalty. How can Christians, in certain countries, approve and rejoice over the news that a criminal has been condemned to death, when we read in the Bible: ‘Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord God. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live?'” (Ezekiel 18:23) In my view, this theology may be behind the Catechism‘s rare allowance for the death penalty (#2266-67) as a form of “legitimate defense” rather than as an expiatory punishment (which should be “medicinal” or restorative rather than retributive).
I feel the omission of Romans 13:4 all throughout the death penalty sections of “Evangelium Vitae” and all throughout these conversations along with the missing half of Genesis 9:6 in “Evangelium Vitae” ( while the other half is quoted) is unhealthy for the Church and in the very long run, this trend toward abolition will one day be overturned by a future Pope. Go to wiki’s list of high murder rate countries. Six of the top twenty worst countries as to murder rates are Catholic countries without the death penalty. That fact is not conclusive but that the entire Catholic community does not know it bespeaks our “solving” a criminology issue with no reference to data at all because the entire Catholic position relies not on real countries and their budgets but on a perfect hypothetical that all governments can afford perfect life long containment with e.g. gangmembers not ordering murders out on the street of witnesses etc. In the real world district courts mandate phone calls for lifers and visits that have resulted in murders from prison bout which the NYTimes estimated the ten year toll in California years ago as 300 murders ordered from prison.
El Salvador #1 worst murder rate. 79% Catholic no dp
Honduras #2. worst ” ” 97%.Catholic no dp
Venezuela.# 4 worst ” ” 96%. ” no dp
Colombia. #7.worst ” ” 90%. ” no dp
Brazil. #19.worst. “. ” 73%. ” no dp
Dominican Republic #20.worst “. ” 95%. ” no dp
Thank you, Bill Bannon, for taking a moment to comment. For now I’ll offer a response to your scriptural queries.
Regarding Romans 13:1-7, both John Howard Yoder (in the book referenced above, p. 146) and Glen H. Stassen (in Capital Punishment: A Reader, p. 126) note that the Greek word translated as “sword”in verse 4 is “machairan,” which was a symbol of judicial authority but “not the arm either of the soldier in combat or of the executioner. The civil order [exemplified by paying taxes] as such is the theme of the passage. The state’s taking of life is not” (Yoder, 146). Yes, many theologians and church authorities cited Romans 13 in the past, but biblical scholarship now appears to call doing so into question.
As for Genesis 9:6, as Yoder points out, “The context of Genesis 9 is that of ritual sacrifice” (p. 122)–which is precisely what Jesus willingly allowed to happen to himself in order to end all sacrifices, be they animals, crops, or of human beings. Also, in the Hebrew, the wording is not clear; scholars cannot determine whether these words are prescriptive or simply descriptive. If the latter, then what is being said is that violent persons tend to meet a violent end themselves–much like Jesus saying at his arrest, “The one who lives by the sword shall die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Surely nobody interprets Jesus here as prescribing death by the sword, but rather he is merely describing (though unapprovingly, I think) how violence tends to beget violence. As Yoder adds, these verses from Genesis 9 (like Genesis 8:22) are poetic, rhythmic, and probably orally reiterated from generation to generation, more like a quatrain rather than a code of laws, more like “oral lore, recited by sages and priests” rather than legislation that a government enacts. As such, they are “wisdom, a prediction, a description, of how things are in fact, in primitive and ancient societies.” In connection with such passages from the Hebrew Scriptures, moreover, as Stassen notes (p. 121) the Mishnah, which is the record of authoritative oral interpretation of the written Torah by Jewish religious leaders between 200 BCE to 200 CE, made the death penalty almost impossible: trials required 23 judges; required at least 2 eyewitnesses (drawing on Deut 19:15) to the commission of the crime; excluded testimony from near relatives, women, slaves, or people with bad reputations; and if the witness testified falsely with malicious intent, he would get the penalty that would have gone to the defendent. Given all this, scholars think the death penalty was “either unenforced or made almost impossible to enforce” within Judaism. Even modern Israel has had only 2 executions–and it allows it only for crimes against humanity, high treason, genocide, crimes against the Jewish people, and terrorism.
Bill,
I think real world comparisons to other countries are helpful, certainly more helpful than desert island scenarios. But most nations with good human rights records have abandoned the death penalty. The major users of capital punishment are China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, . . . and the U.S. This isn’t the company we want to keep, is it?
Surely the vast majority of nations have devised ways of making sure that those in prison for life can cause no more harm. (Do you have the reference for the NYT article on California?)
Tobias,
I appreciate Moltmann’s statement, as well as the theological defense of a non-violent response to violence.
Tobias, the Greek…machaira… is used as a violent combat sword in the following three NT passages: Matthew 26:5/ Luke 21:24/ and Acts 12:2. Therefore it is likely that your referred to scholars Yoder and Stassen in restricting it to a judicial symbolic sword did not look far enough into other passages in which it is found.
Further Romans 13:4 speaks of the state being a vindicator of God’s anger in the Vulgate, the Church’s official Bible. I don’t see God’s anger as an apposite term for tax infractions. More likely “sword” is a synecdoche that includes all infractions and punishments up to and including the very worst….murder and execution.
Genesis 9:6 is prescriptive because inter alia many violent people throughout history have not died by the sword literally even if they used it but in prisons from age. God gives a reason why He wants blood shed for blood ie that man is made in God’s image. This must be seen in terms of when God Himself executes in the Bible intimately and that occasion is only for sacrilege: Uzzah for touching the ark/ Achan for stealing the precious metals of Jericho dedicated to God/ the sons of the high priest Eli for profanating their priestly office/ Onan for at the very deepest level…for risking the non appearance of Christ who had to come through the house of Judah comprised of Er, Onan, Shelah and Judah/ the 72 descendants of Jeconiah for not greeting the ark/ Herod in Acts 12 for accepting praise as god/ Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 for lying to the Holy Spirit. Hence in Genesis 9:6 God is likening murder to sacrilege (made in God’s image) as the reason blood must be shed for it….just as He sheds blood for sacrilege. Thus Saul failed to kill Agag as ordered by God and Samuel then had to do so and Saul was removed from the kingship for that failure.
Romans 13:4 is the New Testament echo of Genesis 9:6 which was given just prior to the first kingdom under Nimrod and was given to both Jews and Gentiles.
Julie
Unfortunately Japan, a very intelligent and cultured people, according to wiki’s list of high murder rate countries is safer than every Catholic country and Japan has the death penalty. The US has it somewhat but much delayed and Europe does not….partly because Scripture is greatly regarded in the US by Protestants and not much at all in Europe. Cardinal Avery Dulles pointed out that the anti death penalty movement began with non religious people for whom death brings annihilation not the hope of e.g. the good thief on the cross who said he was getting what his deeds deserved but was hopeful in Christ.
I was struck by this comment of Dr. Moltmann: “We reject all forms of retributive justice” and by how readily you accepted it – given that it is contrary to what (I understand) the Church teaches.
I keep getting into debates about the meaning of this phrase in CCC 2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” It seems that this can mean nothing other than … retributive justice. So if I understand this right, Dr. Moltmann (and you?) has rejected the Church teaching on the primary objective of punishment. That seems like too great a sacrifice just to eliminate the use of the death penalty. Cardinal Dulles offered this observation:
“If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4).”
Thanks again for the comments, Mr. Bannon and “Ender”, which hopefully will contribute to further clarity on this matter. I do not have time here and now to address everything you have raised (I have a book due to the publisher THIS WEEK), but I’ll do what I can–and I’ll provide you my sources for you to consult for more information.
First, “Ender”: By posting Dr. Moltmann’s statement here, this does not mean that I (or any of the other contributors to this blog) necessarily accept it. Dr. Moltmann is considered to belong to a pantheon of great theologians of the last century, so a statement from him on this topic is noteworthy. We also hoped that it would stimulate further discussion and thought about this topic. In my comment that immediately followed it, I noted how in my view one paragraph of it “echoed” or may be congruent with a line in our statement, and then I went on to indicate where else I see similar theological thinking along these lines, including the papal preacher Fr Cantalamessa. Concerning your question about 2266 on “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense,” I wonder what is meant by “primary”. Does it means “most important” or does it mean “basic”? Other purposes are included (protection of society and the “medicinal” one, which I correlate with restorative justice–not only for the perpetrator but for victims and for society). Indeed, given Pope John Paul II’s emphasis on forgiveness and mercy (e.g., http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20011211_xxxv-world-day-for-peace_en.html), I believe that any retributive justice must be informed and directed by restorative justice. The Catechism does not go into all of that and does not connect all of these dots, because that’s what a Catechism is; it is not a treatise or an encyclical that offers a careful argument. As for the quote you gleaned from Cardinal Dulles, as Dr. Cloutier noted in a comment (in the comments section for the “A Catholic Call to Abolish the Death Penalty”), Cardinal Dulles wasn’t always right. On this particular point (i.e., development–continuities and discontinuities–in Catholic teaching on the death penalty), I am more convinced by the argument of Dr. E. Christian Brugger: “Catholic Moral Teaching and the Problem of Capital Punishment,” The Thomist 68 (2004): 41-67; “Rejecting the Death Penalty: Continuity and Change in the Tradition,” Heythrop Journal (2008): 388-404; and his book, Capital Punishment and Catholic Moral Tradition (University of Notre Dame Press, 2003).
Second, Mr. Bannon: a) Thank you for helpfully noting that “machaira” was the Greek word for “sword” in these other 3 NT passages. I checked my Greek New Testament, and you are correct. However, the use of the sword in each of these instances is not necessarily approved of. In Matthew, Jesus’ statement is one of disapproval (as I noted earlier). In Luke, the author portrays Jesus as weeping about what happens to Jerusalem in 70 CE. And in Acts, the killing of James by King Herod Agrippa was not viewed as a good thing–it was an example of the persecution of the church. Still, your point is that the sword is mentioned in connection with actual killing and in Acts with an execution. Even so, in Romans 13 Paul is referring to the Roman government, which would execute Jews and Christians who were in Rome (the latter were the audience of Paul’s letter), who tended not to be Roman citizens, not with a sword but with crucifixion and other horrific forms of execution. Beheading was used on Roman citizens, and the jury is out as to whether the “machaira” was the instrument used for that. H. Wayne House, who coauthored with Yoder the aforementioned book on The Death Penalty Debate, and who supports capital punishment, acknowledges (pp. 68-69) that “machaira” has been interpreted in two ways: 1) as a method of decapitation (he cites in this connection a book by William G.T. Shedd that was published in 1879, though; so I wonder if there is any more recent biblical scholarship supporting this); 2) “as a symbolic reference to the use of force, much like the policeman’s club and pistol today.” He highlights like you the other “sword” passages and concludes that it refers to #1 so that “Romans 13:1-7 endorses capital punishment” (69). I see where he’s coming from, but I am not persuaded–especially about his use of the word “endorses” (I’ll deal with that in a moment). Gardner C. Hanks, in his book Capital Punishment and the Bible (Herald Press 2002) continues to hold that “machaira” “was actually more of a long dagger than a sword. Soldiers performing police duties carried it as a sign of authority. It was not an instrument of execution for the Romans, who mostly used crucifixion to execute noncitizens” (201). I would welcome further scholarship on this particular question. For now, while I do not think that Paul’s use of “machaira” necessarily excludes executions, the fuller context of Romans 13:1-7, in my view, makes what Hanks (and Stassen and Yoder, as I noted above) say seem more persuasive to me. In short, “machaira” in Romans 13:4 is analogous to the .38 revolver I used to wear when I was a law enforcement officer in the 1980s (and the 9 mm I carried in the late 90s/early 2000s) rather than the rifle I might have used if I was serving on a firing squad at an execution.
b) More on Romans 13:1-7, in their book, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (InterVarsity Press 2003), Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee write the following: “A team of New Testament scholars in Germany has studied Romans 13 and its historical context (Friedrich et al., “Zur historischen Situation,” 131ff). These scholars have concluded that Paul was not teaching about the death penalty but was urging his readers to pay their taxes and not to participate in a rebellion against Nero’s new tax. An insurrection against taxes had recently occurred and had led to Christians, including Priscilla and Aquila, being expelled from Rome. Another insurrection was brewing. The Greek word for ‘sword’ (machaira) in Romans 13:4 refers to the symbol of authority carried by the police who accompanied tax collectors. Paul was urging Christians to make peace, pay Nero’s tax and not rebel. He was not arguing for the death penalty, as he so often has been interpreted as doing. Hew was arguing against the violence of insurrection” (207). Similarly, Hanks writes: “In it [Rom 13], Paul continues to address a church under real or threatened persecution by the Roman government at a specific point in history. Though Claudius expelled Jews from Rome in 49, some Jewish Christians have returned by the time Paul is writing Romans (in 54-58; e.g., Prisca and Aquila, Rom. 16:3). Their continued Christian witness might lead to further unrest and then harassment for the church” (203). While Paul notes that God uses governing authorities to punish evildoers, this does not necessarily mean Paul (or God) “endorses” capital punishment. It was a given at the time that governing authorities would use it–especially since there really weren’t alternatives to it for rebels and murderers (see Hanks 205 for more, as well as James J. Megivern’s big book, The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey [Paulist Press 1997], 17-18 on this point and the previous one).
c. Concerning Genesis 9:6, death penalty supporter John Murray, in his article “The Sanctity of Life” in his book, Principles of Conduct (Eerdmans 1957, pp. 107-122), admits: “As respects man in his relation to man the main question in this passage is whether the clause, ‘by man shall his blood be shed’ is a statement of fact or a command. As far as construction is concerned it could be either.” He notes that the Hebrew wording “could be Jussive as well as Imperfect Niphal….” Again, the wording moreover is poetic rather than jurisprudential/code. Genesis 6-9, like Genesis 1, were written by the P (Priestly) source during the exile in the 6th century (see Lawrence Boadt, Reading the New Testament: An Introduction [Paulist 1984], 95, 103-106 for more on that), when the Jews had no government or king. As scholars point out, Genesis 9:6 refers to how the nearest relative of a victim had the duty to avenge (the go’el, avenger of blood) the slaying of his kinsman (Megivern 16; Hanks 46-47). I agree that because humans are “imago Dei” murder is an especially horrific crime–indeed, a kind of blasphemy. However, I disagree that God commands (to this very day), the execution of the offender to “satisfy” (atone) for this sin. I do not have time right now to address all of the other scripture passages you mention. I’ll try to do so later.
For now, I’ll end with another quote from Fr Cantalamessa: “Some may object: But isn’t the Bible full of violence?… Doesn’t it say that he gave the order to impse the ban, to exterminate entire cities? Isn’t he the one who…prescribes the death penalty in many cases? If someone had put the same objection to Jesus during his life on earth, he would surely have answered in the same way he answered the question about divorce: ‘It was because you were so hardhearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning’ (Matthew 19:8). On the quetion of violence too, ‘it was not like this from the beginning.’… Violence was a facet of the life of those times, and in reflecting that life the Bible, in its own lawmaking and even in dealing with punishment by death, tries at least to set limits to violence, to prevent it from degenerating to a matter of personal decisions…. God put up with violence, as he put up with polygamy, divorce and other things, but all the while he was teaching the people, leading them toward the time when his original plan would again be in place….This time came when Jesus, on the mountain, proclaimed: ‘You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say to you….” (Matt 5:38). In other words, when dealing with the Bible most Christians (Protestant and Catholic) now take into consideration proper exegesis and hermeneutics–and especially read the Bible through the lens of Jesus’ life and teachings.
Dr. Winright – thank you for your response, and while you raised a number of points I would like to narrow the discussion for a moment and discuss just the nature of punishment.
Dulles (whom I think you far too casually dismissed) wrote that the Church identified four objectives: “Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.” As already mentioned, the Catechism holds that “redressing the disorder” is primary, by which I understand them to mean this is the most important objective (I tend to go with the plain meaning of the words used). I also understand the phrase “redressing the disorder” to mean retribution, and I think this is the clear meaning given the phrase by the USCCB in their 1980 document: “The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.”
That retributive justice is not just the primary objective but of all the objectives the only indispensable one is I think apparent by asking whether we would ever apply an unjust punishment to achieve any of the other objectives? Despite the emphasis in 2267 that defense against the criminal is the sole objective to consider in determining the use of the death penalty, no one could seriously argue that protection could permit the use of an unjust punishment. It is justice itself that Dr. Moltmann rejected when he rejected retribution, and I think it is the obligation of justice that is typically ignored when discussing punishment in general and capital punishment in particular.
Tobias,
Here’s the whole chapter and a preceding part…..taxes come up as an after thought only after a lesson on general principles which all of chapter 12 is by the way and which the beginning if 13 is:
Chapter 12:
15
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
16
Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
17
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
18
If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
19
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
20
Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”
21
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
Romans
Chapter 13
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7
Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
8
2 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10
Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.
11
3 And do this because you know the time; it is the hour now for you to awake from sleep. For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed;
12
the night is advanced, the day is at hand. Let us then throw off the works of darkness (and) put on the armor of light;
13
let us conduct ourselves properly as in the day, 4 not in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy.
14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.
Frankly verses 6 and 7 are the only mention of taxes which seem less than germane to the whole piece. And obviously “sword” is being used in connection with executing wrath…not as a symbol of authority. Nor can I agree with your shrinking the sword down to the equivalent of your pistol when swords in general are the size of rifles. I sense you have a goal but a goal can cause a lot of reading into a passage….and that team of scholars from Germany seemed to have done that on the tax insurrections.
To “Ender”: I did not mean to dismiss Cardinal Dulles, but I am researching and writing a full-length scholarly article on the matter, and I’ve got his First Things article, for example, on hand to tackle (I’ve read it several times) head on. I cannot take the time to do so here in a blog, so stay tuned when an in-depth treatment by me appears in the next year or so. The line in the initial version of the Catechism included something about punishment appropriate for the gravity of the crimes, including in connection with the death penalty. The revised Catechism deleted that line in connection with the death penalty. I think that is very significant. The Brugger materials I cited previously go into this much more in-depth and persuasively than Dulles, in my view. As for the wording (in either scripture or in Vatican documents), I prefer to understand the words in the original language. Some things don’t always translate as we assume into English.
To Mr. Bannon: Thanks for providing the wider scriptural context of Romans. The scholarship I cited goes into the historical context, which is very important. The Catholic Church, like most Protestants, now teaches that we should avail ourselves of the historical-critical methods in order to avoid the prooftexting that occurred in the past. At the time he wrote, what I conveyed from the peer-reviewed reputable biblical scholars was indeed the case (the aforementioned situation of the Jews and Christians in Rome). Paul is writing to Christians in Romans, not to citizens in general. Thus in Romans 12 he echoes Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. At the time, there were indeed no Christians in governing authority–so he certainly was not advocating that Christians support the death penalty, even if he grants that governing authorities have a God-given responsibility to preserve law and order in a fallen world. At the same time, we must remember that sometimes governments become rather demonic and do not do what is good for the people–i.e., Revelation 13–and that at such times Christians were called to refuse to obey (i.e., refuse the mark of the beast). Please provide us with your scholarly sources for your biblical interpretations on all of this. I admit that I do not necessarily agree with everything my sources say (and I have written about some of that at times elsewhere), but these are widely acknowledged as representative of the standard scholarship of today.
Plus there is still the hermeneutic that Pope John Paul II and the papal preacher have emphasized regarding scriptural interpretation–especially in light of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (and, as was briefly mentioned in passing way earlier, in connection with the Eucharist). I’m okay if you disagree with that; there are things they’ve said that I disagree with too (and I’d acknowledge that respectfully after careful and prayerful study). But on this what they have said seems persuasive to me.
Oh, and on “machaira” I guess I should have made it clearer that it seems that scholars are aware of other words for other swords (i.e., a long sword) and other weapons at the time. If they are correct that “machaira” refers to a long dagger or a short sword, then the analogy holds with my sidearm, which was more for policing than for either war or for executions (although in war it may be used as a secondary weapon, I suppose, when other more useful weapons were already exhausted). Again, I did not get any work done today on my book manuscript that is due this week because I took time to address your questions/points (and I had to do some other things too, such as have dinner now with my family). I am conveying the scholarship that I find persuasive and that, I think, is representative of the scholarly theological consensus today–which I admit does not necessarily make it right; however, I invite you to consult it for yourself. I cannot reply any further to this thread this week.
Tobias
I have read no scholars on Romans 13:4 because it’s as obvious to me as “weep with those who weep.”…”do not covet thy neighbors wife.” Do we need scholars for the literal which Jerome said should remain excepting real necessity. I needed scholarship to tell me why John put the cleansing of the temple in the beginning of his gospel whereas Matthew put it at the end. I needed scholarship to tell me why all the bragging about John is only in John’s gospel. The late Father Raymond Brown of the PBC answered all that both in “Community of the Beloved Disciple” and in “Introduction to the New Testament”. But scholarship sometimes is only needed if one wants the obvious to vanish as John Paul II had Romans 13:4 and Gn.9:6 vanish in EV as I noted above in my first post. And Raymond Brown probably didn’t like Mary saying those seemingly vindictive things in the Magnificat so he came up with a theory that Luke got the Magnificat from Palestinian anawim and put it is Mary’s mouth in “Birth of the Messiah”.
Scholarship then can sometimes be the tool whereby men seek to make a oassage from Gid vanish.
But Romans 13:4 is as plain as “feed the hungry” or ” if anyone is sad, let him pray.” From the scholarship you’ve shown me on Romans 13, I simply see men who abhor the death penalty and work to undo its prescence in the Bible by reading in context scenarios in order…in order to remove general principles that disturb them.
Romans 12 and 13 are general principles and the tax wars are being shoved in by your group of scholars. Were they relevant there would be signals that all readers could see that these people were in danger if rebelling unto death in wars over taxes. I see no such hints even.
John Paul II shows in section 40 of EV that for him, OT death penalties were unrefined ( and probably not from God) compared to the moral evolution represented in the Sermon on the Mount but he seems oblivious then to God killing Herod in Acts 12 and having worms eat his body after…after the sermon on the mount. What happened? Did God regress after the sermon on the mount or was John Paul not capable of accepting the unrefined side of God’s actions? Benedict in section 42 of Verbum Domine seems also to reject the first person imperatives behind the dooms of the Canaanites as coming from God. But then he ought to seek to have the entire 12th chapter of Wisdom extricated from the canon because in a very prolonged manner, it attributes the dooms to God using the Jews’ hands and He does it only…only after slowly punishing them for child sacrifice lightly at first. The dooms were a last resort which no one mentions because few read Wisdom 12.
I think the death penalty issue is not about the death penalty at all. It’s about something deeper that bothers both sides of the debate….death in general…tsunamis on tv….tornados taking a father and two boys from a wife in seconds. Previous generations prior to modern media and tv did not see these things every few nights…we do on the news. The dp debate helps us come to terms with the wider issue of everyone’s death…but from opposite angles.
Dinner is done, so I have time for one more quick reply regarding Mr Bannon’s speculation about my (and the German biblical scholars’) alleged “goal” in “reading into a passage.” My background: I used to support the death penalty in many of the ways that are being given here. Even though I’m a cradle Catholic, during my high school and college years I read and interpreted the Bible in a fundamentalist way to support that view as well as similar ones on other issues. During my college years I also worked full time in law enforcement. After divinity school, I also worked in lay ecclesial ministry. In each of these careers, I knew persons who were victims of horrible crimes, including murder. I also knew persons accused of horrible crimes, including murder. I have physical scars from my time dealing with very bad people when I was in law enforcement. When working in the jail, I also had excrement thown at me as well as fists. I have spoken face to face with persons who I knew would not hesitate to hurt or try to kill me. During divinity school and then later in graduate school, I carefully and prayerfully considered as much of the scholarship on this topic (as well as the oft-quoted documents from the magisterium on it) in an honest endeavor to inform my conscience about it. If I initially approached the Bible with a previously held stance on the issue of the death penalty, it was exactly the opposite of what has been alleged here. It is very important to be charitable in our discussion, and I try my best to do so–and refrain from attributing motives to others.
Well, I am not (yet) Catholic, and even though I find it amusing that the discussion thus far has led to a tacit opposition of Cardinal Avery Dulles against Pope John Paul II regarding the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Scripture, I should like to limit my remarks to the latter in good-ole’ Protestant fashion.
What Dr. Winright has (win)rightly pointed out regarding Romans 13 – over and over in fact – is all-important in this discussion: Paul was not writing to the government (unlike much of our own work), though he may say some things about the government and God’s super-ordination of it (I’ll get to that later). This is much more substantive of an observation than anything that can be said about machaira. What is important about Paul’s teaching in Romans 12 and 13 is not what abstract “principles” he lays down, but what imperatives he gives to Christians. And principles do not simply equal imperatives, any more than description gives prescription, or an “is” gives an “ought.” So the crucial and rather straightforward question is this: What does Paul actually tell Christians to do? Does he, even once, tell Christians to support – much less participate in – the wielding of the sword that God has given to Rome? There’s a simple way to answer this. Let’s follow every imperative actually issued by Paul in Romans 12 and 13:
“offer your bodies as sacrifices” (12.1; Gk. parastenai)
“Do not conform to this age” (12.2; Gk. me suschematizesthe)
“be transformed by the renewal of the mind” (12.2; Gk. metamorphousthe)
“do not think of yourself highly” (12.3; Gk. me huperphronein)
“but think [of yourself] soberly” (12.3; Gk. phronein eis to sophronein)
[NB: 12.3-13 do not actually have imperatives in Greek, although our translations have them as such; it is inconsequential, though, since these are all about loving and honoring one another – even though different – in the Church)
“bless the one persecuting you” (12.14; Gk. eulogeite)
“bless and do not curse” (12.14; Gk. eulogeite kai me katarasthe)
“rejoice with the ones rejoicing” (12.15; Gk. chairein)
“weep with those weeping” (12.15; Gk. klaiein)
“do not be arrogant” (12.16; Gk. me ginesthe phronimoi)
“do not repay anyone evil for evil” (12.17; Gk. medeni kakon anti kakou apodidontes)
– NB: this is not an imperative, but a participle with imperative force, like the above, same with verse 18.
“do not procure justice for yourself, beloved, but give a place for the wrath [of God]” (12.19; Gk. me heautous ekdikountes, agapetoi, alla dote topon te orge)
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him” (12.20; Gk. psomize auton)
“if he is thirsty, give him drink” (12.20; Gk. potize auton)
“Do not conquer with evil” (12.21; Gk. me niko hupo kakou)
“but conquer evil with good” (12.21; Gk. nika en to agatho to kakon)
“every person should submit to the governing authorities” (13.1; Gk. pasa psuche exousiais huperechousais hupotassestho)
“do good” (13.3; Gk. to agathon)
[NB: in these verses, 13.4-5, Paul is describing the function of God’s super-ordination of the government, and he gives NO imperatives for his readers]
“Give to all what you owe” (13.7; Gk. apodote pasin tas opheilas)
“Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another” (13.8; medeni meden opheilete ei me to allelous agapan)
“love your neighbor” (13.9; Gk. agapeseis ton plesion sou)
“let us put away, then, the works of darkness” (13.12; Gk. apothometha oun ta erga tou skotous)
“let us put on the weapons of the light” (13.12; Gk. endusometha ta hopla tou photos)
“let us live as in the day, decently” (13.13; Gk. hos en hemera euschemonos peripatesomen)
“put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (13.14; Gk. endusasthe ton kurion Iesoun Christon)
“and the cares of the flesh do not make into lusts” (13.14; kai tes sarkos pronoian me poieisthe eis epithumias)
So what is the verdict of this tedious list of Paul’s actual commands to the Christian recipients in these two chapters? Not only does he never at any point tell Christians to support and/or participate in the sword-wielding of the government, he actually ends up telling them to do the exact opposite: bless the ones hurting you (12.14), love (not kill) your enemy (12.20), etc. In fact, the only two imperatives given to Christians in this passage in regards the government are “to submit” and “to pay taxes” (13.1, 6). Not “support,” “submit.” Not “participate in,” but “pay taxes.” Now how and to what extent these commands apply is a matter of theological discussion, which the Church has had from the start (e.g. the disobedience of Peter and the disciples in Acts 4; and Tertullian’s discussion on participation in gov’t in De corona, etc.). But what this text does NOT in any sense say is: Christians can support/administer the death penalty because the government is allowed by God to administer it. Christians and the gov’t are not the same thing, and Paul’s own execution at Roman hands ought to serve as an especially clear declaration of that point.
But still, does not God say that the government is allowed to use the sword? Yes, but it does not say that God wants them to use the sword. He “orders” it, not “ordains” it (to use Yoder’s phrase from The Politics of Jesus). And God is allowed to do that. He can use governments, from Babylon to Rome to America, to accomplish his own purposes (though they do not necessarily think that is what they are doing). Yet just because God allows Babylon to sack Jerusalem doesn’t mean that He told Israel to sack themselves. For Babylon – no matter how God uses it – is never Israel, and neither is any nation the Church, which, according to the first Pope, Peter, is its own kind of nation (1 Peter 2.8-10).
My exegesis of this passage may indeed cut both ways, for what America does to its prisoners cannot be expected to be the same as what Christ did to his Church – set them free in spite of the fact they they were once enemies of His State (Romans 5.1-10). This may not fair well for the petition, but I guess it’s worth a try. At any rate, it is quite far from obvious that Romans 12-13 teaches that Christians should support the death penalty. Consequently, “weep with those weeping” – which IS an imperative given to us – has no corresponding imperative, “kill those who kill.” Perhaps we needed scholarship to tell us that after all, or at least the patience to hear Paul’s own commands without superimposing our own.
Jordan
Except your whole essay could also be used to argue against self defense in for example an armed home invasion. But in Christ’s directives: ” do not resist the evil doer”….”turn the other cheek”….”love your enemy”…..Christ is never talking about atrocious assault or rape of one’s wife.
If you think he is, inform any woman you live with so that she can think of getting her own self defense. The state not only carries the sword but deputes to you the right to carry it now in the form of a gun… to kill within your home a home invader with a glock in his hand as he enters the window. The reason you kill him is to halt perfectly his trigger finger whoch until halted couod paralyze or kill or blind anyone in your house. Christ treats that case not at all just as He did not treat many areas.
Indeed the one version of “turn the other cheek” specifies the right cheek as where the adversary is hitting you. Raymond Brown concluded it is thus specifying that your opponent is using his weaker…left….hand. And that means Christ was talking about more of a less than full force insult peculiar to that part of the world. So for example Christ tells us nothing like…”if a man intends to kidnap your four year old, give him your five year old also.”. As soon as we elevate from ordinary interpersonal relating to criminal activity, all the sweet principles are inapplicable. Christ did not deal with them.
Here is Pius XII’s explanation of Rom 13:1-4 (I couldn’t find a translation of the actual document so I can only cite someone else’s description):
Address to the Italian Association of Catholic Jurists (5 February 1955), AAS 47 (1955) 81 [Catholic Mind 53 (June 1955), 381.]
“Nor does the above citation from Paul’s letter to the Romans legitimate capital punishment, but only upholds the authority of civil government and its power of coercion in general. In regard to this passage and specifically to the “sword borne by public authority,” Pope Pius XII taught that Paul was referring to “the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality,” and not to the content of “individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action.”
However we may choose to interpret that Scripture passage ourselves, it is clear the Church historically recognized a State’s right to employ capital punishment, a right implicitly endorsed by the Fourth Lateran Council when, in forbidding the clergy from participating in such punishment, they put no such restriction on the State.
“No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. … A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics.” (#18)
Beyond all this, however, remains the question of retribution. To reject retributive justice, as Dr. Moltmann did, is to reject justice.
“We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.” (Aquinas, ST I-II 21,3)
Nor can the Catechism simply excise the relation between a crime and the punishment it deserves, in which even the revised edition recognizes that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime (2266).
Mr. Bannon,
My essay was a very specific reply to your very specific claim that a very specific passage – Romans 12 and 13 – justifies Christians supporting and/or administering (in behalf of the State) the death penalty. To generalize my method on one occasion, with one passage, and imply that I would do the exact same kind of thing on another occasion, with another passage, is a rather drab move. Your claim was that Paul teaches that Christians should/can support the death penalty in Romans 12 and 13. I pointed out, along with many others, that you are assuming that what Paul said about the State in 13.4-6 somehow negates what he directly commanded Christians (not the State) to do in the very same passages. For your extrapolation of the righteousness of the death penalty from Romans 12-13, you have to assume that Paul thinks that what is true of the State is also true of God’s State, the Church, Christians. This is not only historically anachronistic (for you are doing no more than imposing your democratically-minded “we all participate in gov’t” on a time and place where Nero was Emperor), it is also theologically problematic because you end up having to say that just because God is sole ruler of the cosmos, and can thus make use of evil for good ends, somehow that justifies our participation in evil (as if Israel was supposed to participate in Babylon, whom God also used as a “his servant”).
I would hesitate to so confidently assert what Christ “was never talking about,” especially if you are trying to say that he was talking about petty squabbles. This, too, is historically problematic, since Jesus was living in an occupied land, dominated by Rome, who kept order precisely through violence, coercion, intimidation, and even rape (in fact, an early anti-Christian polemic against the virgin birth of Christ was that his mother had been raped by a Roman soldier). To simply reduce the radical nature of Jesus’ words, and then to categorically dismiss the incarnation-teachings-crucifixion-resurrection as the sole Christian paradigm for Christian ethics (i.e. Romans 5.1-10; 12; 1 Pet. 2; 1 John 2.7; all the early Fathers) – sure, then one can safely assume that Jesus wasn’t asking us to do anything that Common Sense could have already told/shown us. If that’s the kind of impact (or lack thereof) that you think the Incarnation of the Word of God made on our ethical-political reasoning and world, well then I guess we really are worlds apart.
I would also not so confidently assert would I or any of the women I live with would want by way of self-defense. I live in a house that has been broken into 4 times. We have no weapons, no guns, and just because the State tells me I have a right to do so, well, I should then like to evoke the words of Peter: “You tell us whether it is better to obey God rather than humans” (Acts 4).
As for your drastic and anachronistic reduction of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, well I’m afraid that would take too long to adequately address. It is “drastic” because you have reduced what it truly is (at least as Matthew has presented it, paralleling the entire Story of Israel in Exodus) – a giving of a New Law to the entire People of God, which is personal, political, spiritual, i.e. holistic and total – to some quaint principles for our daily, interpersonal interactions (again – something that Common Sense could have shown us – no need for Christ). It is “anachronistic” because, as numerous scholars have pointed out in many different disciplines (e.g. Bruce Molina, Jerome Neyrey, Talid Asad, N.T. Wright, William Cavanaugh, Dietrich Bonhoeffer – and I presume Dr. Winright himself!), your presumed dichotomy between personal/political did not exist before the rise of Modernity and the Nation State (at the earliest).
So long as Christians continue to want an ethic and/or politic that also measures up to the exigencies of the State, the work of Christ and the Spirit will continue to be subjected to our immediate demands. We will continue to reduce New Creation into Fallen Creation, Spirit into Body, Grace into (pure) Nature, Absolute Good into relative Evil, God into Idols, Christ into Antichrist. If we cannot stomach the possible incredulity and scorn the world will heap upon us for drawing a clear, heavy, and visible line between Christian and non-Christian ethics, then perhaps we have not adequately heard Christ when He said: “count the cost.”
“Ender”: Thanks for your sincere interest in this important matter. I do have a quick moment to at least paste something here. As I attempted to say earlier, the Catechism is a bit like offering bullet points. In order to put a little meat on the bones of what is said there, let’s look at what the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says (especially #402, 403, and 405: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Inflicting punishment). I think it supports my suggestion that while retributive justice is indeed important (402), it should be informed by and directed toward correction (the “medicinal” or reconciliative/restorative justice, 403). In 405, the death penalty is justified only in connection with the legitimate defense of society, and it is not justified as a form of punishment. Other forms of bloodless punishments “better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”
“e. Inflicting punishment
402. In order to protect the common good, the lawful public authority must exercise the right and the duty to inflict punishments according to the seriousness of the crimes committed[827]. The State has the twofold responsibility to discourage behaviour that is harmful to human rights and the fundamental norms of civil life, and to repair, through the penal system, the disorder created by criminal activity. In a State ruled by law the power to inflict punishment is correctly entrusted to the Courts: “In defining the proper relationships between the legislative, executive and judicial powers, the Constitutions of modern States guarantee the judicial power the necessary independence in the realm of law”.[828]
403. Punishment does not serve merely the purpose of defending the public order and guaranteeing the safety of persons; it becomes as well an instrument for the correction of the offender, a correction that also takes on the moral value of expiation when the guilty party voluntarily accepts his punishment.[829] There is a twofold purpose here. On the one hand, encouraging the re-insertion of the condemned person into society; on the other, fostering a justice that reconciles, a justice capable of restoring harmony in social relationships disrupted by the criminal act committed.
In this regard, the activity that prison chaplains are called to undertake is important, not only in the specifically religious dimension of this activity but also in defence of the dignity of those detained. Unfortunately, the conditions under which prisoners serve their time do not always foster respect for their dignity; and often, prisons become places where new crimes are committed. Nonetheless, the environment of penal institutions offers a privileged forum for bearing witness once more to Christian concern for social issues: “I was … in prison and you came to me” (Mt 25:35-36).
404. The activity of offices charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principle by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be borne in mind.
In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.
Likewise ruled out is “the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial”.[831] Moreover, it must be ensured that “trials are conducted swiftly: their excessive length is becoming intolerable for citizens and results in a real injustice”.[832]
Officials of the court are especially called to exercise due discretion in their investigations so as not to violate the rights of the accused to confidentiality and in order not to undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Since even judges can make mistakes, it is proper that the law provide for suitable compensation for victims of judicial errors.
405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834] Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835] The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.”
The substantial and detailed comments of this thread are appreciated. As per our policy, I am as editor suspending this thread for the time being, as everyone has had the chance to state their case in some detail. Larger issues, about biblical hermeneutics and about competing understandings of retributive justice, have been raised here – we intend to do future blog posts that address such issues in more substantial detail than is possible in a comment thread. Please check back for those posts, and feel free to comment (within policy guidelines) on them.