Capital punishment and torture

[angell1]

how do we explain the church’s endorsement of capital punishment and torture as compatible with the teaching of Jesus?

I know, it’s not so endorsed anymore but there was a time period where, though ecclesiastical courts did not torture anyone themselves, they knew the state did. and church and state weren’t separated, and the state was made up of Christian people. how exactly was this ok? and how does this not constitute a change in moral teaching?

I’m not accusing, just trying to understand. Jesus did say do good to your enemies and while, I definitely don’t think he meant that thre was no responsibility for the state and criminals got a free for all, I’m not sure if a Christian country putting people to death or torturing them was what he envisioned either. and yes, I’m aware that the bible does not condemn torture or capital punishment but it doesn’t condemn a lot of things that the church doesn’t permit today. and based on what I’ve read, the early Christians were not too keen on torture or capital punishment either

is there just something I’m not understanding?

 

[Petaro]

If by torture you mean the terrible abuses done in the name of medieval justice, then you have to understand that the Church is the child of its society, leading the way in compassion, but being a prisoner to the knowledge and customs of the day.
A few hundred years ago a barbaric race would still demand a person accept the jurisdiction of the State to be tried for a supposed crime. If the person did, he would often be found arbitrarily guilty, hanged with his property supporting his family confiscated. If he refused that jurisdiction a heavy weight was increased gradually on his chest until he accepted the jurisdiction of the State. If he died under this torture without accepting jurisdiction his property could not be forfeited to the State. Many good men died protecting their families. This State was England.
So do not think that the inquisition was anything outside the normal processes of “justice” as you would find in any European society of that time.
Interestingly, the formality developed over time that made the English Common Law supporting the King;s peace so arbitrary at times, was softened in many ways by the Chancery Courts run by the Church. It is only in this century that the Judicature Act merged these traditions in Australia. It was only in the 18th Century that full emancipation of Catholics was allowed in England.
So true justice is as slow as a snail in many cultures and you are unwise to judge the past from customs of today. Some societies have stayed in a medieval mindset and are causing more injustice today.

 

[Brendan]

As far as Capital Punishment, the Church has recognized a limited need for it. Capital Punishment itself is not an evil ( as God Himself called for it as a punishment, and God cannot commit an evil). It only becomes an evil when it is applied unjustly.

As far as torture, that IS an intrinsic evil and is condemned by the Church.

 

[thistle]

how do we explain the church’s endorsement of capital punishment and torture as compatible with the teaching of Jesus?

I know, it’s not so endorsed anymore but there was a time period where, though ecclesiastical courts did not torture anyone themselves, they knew the state did. and church and state weren’t separated, and the state was made up of Christian people. how exactly was this ok? and how does this not constitute a change in moral teaching?

I’m not accusing, just trying to understand. Jesus did say do good to your enemies and while, I definitely don’t think he meant that thre was no responsibility for the state and criminals got a free for all, I’m not sure if a Christian country putting people to death or torturing them was what he envisioned either. and yes, I’m aware that the bible does not condemn torture or capital punishment but it doesn’t condemn a lot of things that the church doesn’t permit today. and based on what I’ve read, the early Christians were not too keen on torture or capital punishment either

is there just something I’m not understanding?

The Church does NOT endorse torture.

The Church also does NOT endorse capital punishment but accepts that it may be necessary in instances so rare to be almost non-existent. That is NOT supporting it.

 

[SKGFP]

If the Magisterium teaches that torture is an intrinsic evil, I am curious how this squares with (1) the Church’s acceptance of torture in the past (specifically, e.g. as part of the inquisition), and (2) our belief that the Church is protected from false teaching on matters of faith and morals.

I’ve been listening to some Steve Weidenkopf CDs, and this issue has been on my mind. His talks on the Crusades and the Inquisition are great, btw.