Is Capital Punishment Christian?

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 September 24, 2017|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A murderer forfeits his life, and it is right that he should be killed by the sword.” So said Martin Luther, and his argument to that effect, cited here last week, may have impressed some readers and discombobulated others. But among those who confidently tell one another and the world that it’s unchristian—nay, uncivilized—to put murderers to death, the most likely response was to shrug it off.

“Martin Luther, what does he know? The man was a hot-head. His writings aren’t Holy Scripture, and not even Lutherans accept all of them anymore. Why should we care what Luther had to say?”

Granted that Luther was an unusual and in some ways a problematic figure. But his views on crime and punishment—how unusual and problematic are they? Where do they stand in what is normally considered the Christian tradition?

The answer is: Smack in the middle of it.

Start with Scripture. The many harsh penalties in the Law of Moses are well known. The fact that Jesus, in warning Peter not to commit the crime of resisting His arrest, spoke words that are a paraphrase of the law given to Noah—that is less widely appreciated. And notice that both verses (Genesis 9:6 and Matthew 26:52) speak of all murderers paying with their lives for their crimes. Not one in ten, not one in a hundred, still less one in a thousand, which is the way we Americans today “enforce” our laws prohibiting murder.

Death penalty opponents sometimes quote St. Paul: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’ ” (Romans 12:19). If they would only linger in the Scriptures for just a little while, they’d reach the part where Paul says: “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for [the one who is in authority] does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). So Paul turns out to say the opposite of what the opponents represent as his meaning.

Then there’s St. Augustine, who saw the death penalty and other punishments as necessary social institutions, for “while these are feared, the wicked are kept within bounds and the good live more peacefully among the wicked.” And St. Thomas Aquinas, who, while arguing against the pacifist interpretation of Matthew 26:52, quoted Augustine—“To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority”—and added: “On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword by the authority of the sovereign or judgeis not to take the sword, but to use it as commissioned by another, and so it does not deserve punishment.”

Aquinas further observed:

Man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection itself of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some kind of training. … As to those young people who are inclined to acts of virtue by their good natural disposition, or by custom, or rather by the gift of God, paternal training suffices, which is by admonitions. But since some are found to be depraved, and prone to vice, and not easily amenable to words, it was necessary for such to be restrained from evil by force and fear.

Desiderius Erasmus, a contemporary of Luther’s, was temperamentally his opposite. Theologically, Erasmus differed enough from Luther to remain a faithful Catholic, preferring to reform the Church’s faults from within. This “Prince of the Humanists” wrote that “there is not, nor ever was, nor ever will be any man who does not need mercy.” But in citing the example of King David, who had Uriah killed so as to take Bathsheba for himself, Erasmus affirmed the ruler’s responsibility to mete out punishment:

David committed murder and adultery, two deadly offenses. Either of these is more heinous when committed by a king, since it is his duty to punish these crimes in others. The more impudently princes sin among men, the more seriously they offend God.

Erasmus contrasted God’s potential forgiveness of sins in the hereafter with the duty of temporal rulers on earth, noting that were a king to forgive murder as God can do, “then the people would cry that the king’s clemency was inordinate, since it impaired the force of the law and encouraged sin by the impunity it allowed.”

Against all that, let’s hear from a modern-day Lutheran, the American criminologist Victor H. Evjen, who wrote in the March 1968 issue of Lutheran Women: “Retribution cannot be considered a legitimate goal of criminal law.” That, said he, is because retribution “is repugnant to modern civilized man.”

The 1960s were modern liberalism’s heyday, when liberals were thoroughly in control (and things consequently were going thoroughly to hell). From the Left’s proud tower, Evjen presented his assertions not as mere personal opinion but as self-evident facts. Yet they are easily disproven, not just by the examples already cited but by two Christians of the modern era, both of whom defended retribution as a legitimate goal of the law.

Désiré Cardinal Mercier became a hero to the Belgians during World War I, when his country was subjected to a deliberate policy of terror by the invading German army. The German commanders in August 1914 hoped this schrecklichkeit would speed their passage through Belgium and thus ensure quick victory over France on the Western Front. Two years into the war, Cardinal Mercier spoke these defiant words from the pulpit of the cathedral in German-occupied Brussels:

Whatever may be our sufferings, we must not wish to show hatred toward those who have inflicted them. Our national unity is joined with a feeling of universal brotherhood. But even this feeling of universal brotherhood is dominated by our respect for the unconditional justice, without which no relationship is possible, either between individuals or between nations. And that is why, with St. Thomas Aquinas, the most authoritative teacher of Christian theology, we proclaim that public retribution is commendable.

Crime, violation of justice, outrage on the public peace, whether enacted by an individual or by a group, must be repressed. Men’s minds are stirred up, tortured, uneasy, as long as the guilty one is not put back in his place, as the strong, healthy, colloquial expression has it. … Public retribution in this sense may distress the affected sentimentality of a weak nature; all the same, it is, says St. Thomas, the expression and the decree of the highest, the purest form of charity, and of the zeal which is its flame. It does not make a target of suffering, but a weapon wherewith to avenge the outrage of justice.

How can one love order without hating disorder; intelligently wish for peace without expelling that which is destroying it; love a brother, that is to say wish him well, without desiring that willingly, or by force, his will shall bend before the unalterable edicts of justice and truth? 

In 1940, C.S. Lewis carried forward Cardinal Mercier’s argument:

A bad man, happy, is a man without the least inkling that his actions do not “answer,” that they are not in accord with the laws of the universe.  A perception of this truth lies at the back of the universal human feeling that bad men ought to suffer … Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of “retribution.” And what can be more outrageous than to catch me and submit me to a disagreeable process of moral improvement without my consent, unless (once more) I deserve it?

And in Mere Christianity (1952), Lewis wrote:

Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death.

In linking retribution with the spiritual welfare of offenders as well as the physical welfare of their victims, Mercier and Lewis were echoing those who went before them. Erasmus, for example, in “The Immense Mercy of God” noted that God’s mercy to sinners’ souls is often coupled with correction, with earthly misfortunes, and sometimes even with death. And Augustine wrote, “It is not without advantage that human recklessness should be confined by fear of the law so that innocence may be safe among evil-doers, and the evil-doers themselves may be cured by calling on God when their freedom of action is held in check by fear of punishment.”

In discussing these matters, I haven’t yet mentioned the elephant in the room: Pope Francis, who in a recent homily pronounced executions “inadmissible,” a practice that while formerly accepted is now seen to be “a mortal sin.”

I would not be so insolent as to dispute the Holy Father on a question of Christian ethics. I will, however, point out that Francis was not speaking ex cathedra, and may not have intended to go beyond what his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI had already said about capital punishment: that it is permissible only when it is “the only possible way” to protect the innocent, and that such cases are “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

To inflict suffering needlessly would indeed be “a mortal sin.” Of course it is. But the idea that capital punishment serves no purpose in protecting the innocent is a statement not about Christian ethics but about the affairs of this world, a statement that contradicts something taken for granted by virtually all the Christian authorities quoted above: that deterrence is (or can be) real.

It seems today’s Catholic leadership has fallen for modern liberalism’s bait-and-switch: “Executions don’t deter”—(sotto voce: “when rarely carried out”). More on that here.

Knowing that a liberal would sooner say the world is flat than admit being guilty of anything, let’s give the last word to another Christian writer of note, John Calvin:

If [rulers] sheath their sword and keep their hands unsullied by blood, while the wicked roam about massacring and slaughtering, then so far from reaping praise for their goodness and justice, they make themselves guilty of the greatest possible injustice.

 

About the Author:

Karl Spence

Karl Spence is a retired journalist living in San Antonio. His work has appeared in National Review, the Chattanooga Free Press, American Thinker and at www.fairamendment.us.

  • Joel Mathis

    John 8New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    The Adulterous Woman

    8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they *said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, [a]Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]

    • Karl_Spence

      Hello, Mr. Mathis. I’m glad to see you’re still following me.

      Tell me, do you think this passage about the woman taken in adultery cancels the duty of rulers to punish crime? That would certainly have been news to all those Christian writers I quoted. The passage has in fact had the effect of softening one particular aspect of the law: the stoning of adulterers. You don’t see much of that in European history.

      Muslim history is a different matter. There is a tradition of Mohammed that has him playing a role exactly opposite to that played by Jesus, and insisting that an adulterous Jewish couple be stoned despite the desire of rabbis that they be shown mercy. And so the stoning of adulterers under Islam has continued to the present day.

      • Joel Mathis

        Karl:

        I come from a Mennonite tradition, which places a good deal more emphasis on nonviolence than do most mainstream Christian denominations. To the extent the Mennonites have outlined their stance on the death penalty, it’s within what they see as a Biblical imperative to submit to the authority of the state.

        http://www.anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=A_Christian_Declaration_on_Capital_Punishment_(General_Conference_Mennonite_Church,_1965)

        My own theology’s a little fuzzy these days, but I’d note that Christianity generally holds that given the choice between a sort eternal death penalty for all who have sinned – which is all of us – God chose instead to sacrifice his son to create reconciliation. If we are intent on acting out Christian morals in the public sphere, it seems to me that most elemental of Christian teachings might be a good place to start.

        Respectfully, J

        • Karl_Spence

          Hello, Joel! Thanks for keeping this conversation going.

          You may have noticed that the authorities I cited, beginning with Christ himself, drew a distinction between the duties of the Christian citizen (turn the other cheek) and those of the secular authorities (execute God’s wrath on the wrongdoer). God loves us too much to give us all that’s coming to us, but He loves our victims too much to let us get away with the crimes we commit. Ergo, the sacrifice on the cross. But look at the two common criminals who died alongside Jesus on Calvary. One wanted to get off the hook; the other rebuked the first and confessed he was getting his just deserts. Jesus promised salvation to the second, not the first.

          “The most elemental of Christian teachings,” to be applied aright, must be applied in such a way as not to negate the rest. The coexistence of eternal salvation with earthly punishment is very much a part of Christian teaching, and there must be a divine purpose in that. Or are we smarter than all those other guys?

          • Joel Mathis

            There are a multitude of punishments short of killing a man, though.

            I hear what you’re saying, Karl, in that “the coexistence of eternal salvation with earthly punishment is very much a part of Christian teaching, and there must be a divine purpose in that.”

            Two points, one with an eye on eternity and the other less so.

            • Christians who concede earthly punishment is within the authority of early rulers can still think there’s a moral reason to be skeptical: The death penalty, as applied in the US, is less a function of guilt and more a function of race and class. To the extent Christians are concerned with justice, it’s not just on an individual level but at societal levels, too. There’s no “thou shalt apply the death penalty equitably” commandment, I guess, but it seems like it should give moral-minded persons pause. This isn’t about being smarter than all the other guys; it’s about the humility of our limits.

            • The eternal argument is this: According to some views of Christian theology, a person has until his very last second alive on earth to repent and thus earn salvation. Choosing to end a life a human-decided moment stands a good chance of arbitrarily deciding to shorten that human’s chance to know God — which seems to be rather opposite of the Christian mission as expressed in the Great Commission.

            Again, the Christ I encounter in the Gospels seems less concerned with getting justice for things done wrong than in making things right.

            I doubt we’ll find agreement on this. I thank you for the respectful conversation.

  • tz1

    St. John Paul II’s evangelium vitae weighs in:

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

    search for “death penalty”, and there are discussions about crime and punishiment. Paragraph 56 addresses it directly.

    But the much larger point is we are executing about a million innocent babies a year when they are inconvenient, not criminals after a long judicial process.

    • Karl_Spence

      Yes, I mention John Paul’s views on that in the article.

      I once debated a man who supported abortion and opposed the death penalty, and thought it most incongruous that some people would do the reverse. How hypocritical, he said, imagining he had scored a great forensic triumph. But it’s hardly an advanced concept to hold that the guilty and the innocent should receive different treatment. It’s not at all self-contradictory to say of a man on trial for murder, “If he’s guilty, hang him, but if he’s innocent, let him go.” Still less so is it to say, “Hang murderers, but protect innocent human beings in the womb.”

      Opposition to abortion does not require opposition to the death penalty. It’s a pity that so many in the Church have sought to appease such an irrational view.

  • Mark Hamilton

    My home parish’s new priest used Good Friday as an excuse to tell the faithful about how the Church supposedly is against the death penalty. He is wrong and everyone was irritated. Somebody forgot to tell the new guy that this is not a SJW parish. I intend to take him out to lunch one day soon to let him know.

    • GloriaEDesimone

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !dw373d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleDailyConsumerCareJournalsJobsReport1/easy/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw373l..,.

    • Joel Mathis

      Jesus was a social justice warrior.

      • Karl_Spence

        Joel, you may not have meant it this way, but considering that you have professed yourself to be a Social Justice Warrior, your claim that Jesus was a SJW comes off as saying “I’m like Jesus.” Don’t be surprised at the eye-rolling such a claim receives.

        When people mock SJWs, they are thinking of the Occupy Wall Street mobs who turn public places into garbage dumps, smash windows, defecate on police cars, etc. They are thinking of the Black Lives Matter marchers who chant, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon,” and incite the assassination of police officers. They are thinking of the college activists who curse out, shout down and even physically assault mild-mannered dissenters from the Party line. They are thinking of the Antifa thugs who set fires, loot stores and beat up people in the street. None of that seems very Christ-like to me.

        As for the concept of “social justice” as opposed to “justice,” read Thomas Sowell’s The Quest for Cosmic Justice. Much food for thought there.

        • Joel Mathis

          “Don’t be surprised at the eye-rolling such a claim receives.”

          Fair enough. I do think that the way of Christ is difficult – that it probably pulls us away from our traditional attachments, and that much of what passes for American Christianity is just Americanism justifying itself theologically. To the extent any of us claim to follow Christ, probably all of us deserve to be mocked as hypocrites. Including me.

          • Derek Pandamonium

            Excuse me while I take part in the mocking. To think Jesus was a SJW is to misunderstand who Jesus was and what he preached. Jesus told us to give to the poor. He didn’t tell us to take others wealth and buy votes with it while patting ourselves on the back for virtue signalling. SJW’s are about materialism, Jesus was about spiritualism. SJW’s Like the current Pope are Marxists. You also have no idea what American Christianity is. Do you really believe there is such a thing? There are plenty of Liberation theology churches in America, the very antithesis of Americanism. Reverend Wright ran one where the anti-American obama attended for twenty years.

            You get one thing right. The way of Christ is difficult. But you mistake the hand pointing to the Moon for the Moon itself.

      • Mark Hamilton

        Not really.

  • J.j. Cintia

    That old poop is more than fallible. He protects criminals and reprimands their victims for speaking out against their rapine and looting. Attila the Hun would be a better Pope than this Jesuit pretender I’d say. Judas seems to be the example this old foul fellow of the Communist Liberation Front of South America uses. His corrupt clergy who collect taxes like Caesar and use those alms to soothe their “vows of poverty” by having houses and maid service look hardly even similar to the Lord Jesus or Yeshua of Nazareth who adapted his stepfather Joseph’s teachings of being a Master Carpenter to fill his Earthly needs. When your Temple seeks what is Caesar’s and is more of the World than the Cathedral of Celestial Lights, then you can see why these cretins love the sinners so much. Getting caught molesting their flock and having Roman Orgies. This may as well be the Temple of Baal. I recognize that “sacrament of eating flesh and drinking blood”. It is not of He from on high. It is THE SACRAMENT OF BAAL.

  • Derek Pandamonium

    Capital punishment is human. Christians aren’t in charge of capital punishment, the government is. When the government doesn’t enforce our laws and ordinances, criminals run amok. That’s what we’re seeing today. Where tax payers are second class citizens and our leaders pontificate and virtue signal while leaving the law abiding citizens to the tender mercies of the criminals.

    • BrendaPThrift

      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !dw334d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsZenOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!dw334l..,..

  • eric james

    What would Jesus do?