Deuteronomy 22:21 (that ol' stoning conundrum)

[Lief_Erikson]

I was adding to my last post and I ran out of time, so I’ll just spread over to here . . .

I’ve had to piece together what I have from a combination of the Bible study, personal theological reflection, and studying the Medieval Ages, including a variety of popes and Church Fathers. I think studying the Medieval Ages, including the encyclicals of some of the Medieval and 18th-19th century popes might help you on this point, but the problem is, as far as I’ve been able to see, a lot of the writers back in the Medieval era just took what I’m saying largely for granted. So they didn’t feel a need to provide a theological exposition of it, for everyone agreed about them and knew this. Which is a pain in the neck for me, but I understand where they’re coming from. I mean, I keep reading things like popes or councils just saying, “These are to be the legal penalties for sins X, Y and Z, for these sins are abominations,” but back then, who had even thought of such a thing as religious freedom and unbiblical justice? Those would have been novel thoughts, so they didn’t have to fight that much. I need to research it more, and I think the transitional popes might have more detail.

I bet that this is true, it’s what I’ve seen. Also, I keep seeing Medieval popes or writers occasionally casually citing the Old Testament as the basis for some of their laws against heresy or witchcraft or other things. They definitely felt completely free to do that. A Protestant writer about the period that I read wrote, “The separation between the Old and New Testaments hadn’t been made clear yet . . .” Ah, the joys of Enlightenment .

 

[SonofMonica]

Also, I keep seeing Medieval popes or writers occasionally casually citing the Old Testament as the basis for some of their laws against heresy or witchcraft or other things. They definitely felt completely free to do that. A Protestant writer about the period that I read wrote, “The separation between the Old and New Testaments hadn’t been made clear yet . . .” Ah, the joys of Enlightenment .

Excellent scholarship on these last set of posts. I mean it when I say it’s opening up new avenues for me to explore and opening my mind to new possibilities. So, if I recall correctly, Peter and Paul had disagreements about what part of the Law, if any, Christians would be subject to. Peter took the position that Christians had to be more “Jewish” and Paul was preaching salvation in a Gentile context without the necessity of such things, and actually rebuked Peter. I’ve had Catholics tell me that the controversy is still acknowledged and even celebrated by Catholics today as a symbol of unity in diversity and the possibility of disagreement about things other than dogma; who can really know the mind of God except through what has been revealed? And it makes sense, because much of the New Testament is a “fight” over how much “Jew” you have to be, and how much freedom there is in Christ. So in one sense, I can understand the statement “They didn’t understand the separation between the Old and New Testament yet,” in the sense that our understanding of divinely revealed truth does change, while the truth itself does not. On the other hand, that sort of thinking must be tempered by 2000 years of thinking, teaching and demonstrable results. And I understand that is a hotbed and contentious area to discuss, even amongst Catholics in my experience.

Now, back to the subject of medieval popes and the like, I will admit that whenever I see the documents of popes or councils instructing that someone guilty of sin X should be turned over to civil authorities and arrested, I cringe. The idea that the Church should be involved in the administration of civil justice in terms of punishment doesn’t sit well with me. And I don’t think there’s only one reason for that. Of course we must acknowledge that we are children of the Enlightenment and have grown up in a world of religious freedom, if not tolerance. In America, despite its acknowledgment of God and the Almighty, the separation of church and state is enshrined in our founding documents and the minds and statements of our earliest leaders. So it’s a part of our civics. But there is also the idea (reinforced by these same aforementioned civics) that the world has “learned something” from mixing church and state–that we’ve learned it doesn’t work and leads to corruption. Even I, as someone who grew up going to Catholic Mass with Grandma, and who has studied Catholic theology and regularly engages in apologetics on this site, who is immersed in Catholic media and radio every day, and who is thrilled to be experiencing the joys of having his wife, his mom and his dad all entering or reconciling with the Catholic Church at the same time from protestantism–even I have trouble with the idea of what would happen if the Catholic church were in charge of civic punishment in the slightest way. So much so that, in the back of my head, I almost see it as a bad thing if everyone were Catholic. That somehow we’ve learned that we need dissension by others and religious tolerance and freedom in civic authority, if we are going to truly live out what we are called to live.

So I have it in my head that political corruption is worse if the Church is involved in the political realm because of our call to holiness. I have it in my head that punishment by the government is less merciful if the Church is involved because of the teachings of Jesus involving turning the other cheek. Right or wrong, I see the principles that sprang from Reformation as an inevitability brought because of the civil entanglement of the Church. Seeing statements to the effect that every human being should be subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff in temporal affairs sends shivers down my spine. It changes the view in my head from Shepherd to Dictator. From Bishop to Emperor. Somehow, it seems appropriate that the Bishop of Rome should, like the rest of us, be required to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s–not be Caesar. If the Messiah did not come to be a temporal ruler, but instead a humble servant, what basis does his vicar have to set himself up as a temporal authority, or even be involved in such things?

And despite the fact that we live in a “modernistic” society and are subject to the winds of change, I think in my mind it only lends more credibility to the Christian idea of free will and voluntary submission to Christ if the Vatican stays out of the civil realm of other governments. How can we be truly following Christ if we are simply forced to refrain from act X, less we be condemned by the Church to be stoned by the government? I think the Christian idea is that we are called to be holy out of love for Christ, the love (law) he has imprinted on our hearts. We see no civil pronouncements from the early popes. Why is that? The first Christians were Christians because they wanted to be, and acted like Christians because they wanted to. They were the persecuted, not the persecutors. And I think Church has a lot to learn from that (and I think it has). I believe it is possible to say that the Church lost its way in terms of dealing with the powers of the civil realm in the medieval period, without having to say that it ever taught false doctrine or became apostate. After all, what business does a King have appointing a Bishop? And vice versa.

So, when I see a verse like “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” I don’t see that as a statement that Christians should practice mercy in addition to justice. I see it as a statement that Christians should stay out of the administration of God’s justice. So I’m not saying that a Christian cannot be a civil Judge and apply the civil law, just that this teaching of Jesus is about how a Christian is not to be dispensing the punishments of God’s law. And that to do so would be immoral, because none of us are innocent. “Judge not, lest ye be judged” sounds like a grave warning to me. The Catechism says that we can objectively say an act is bad, but the idea is that we are not to judge the individual for having done it and certainly not cast the first stone. It seems to me that the fact that Jesus focused so much on hell only reinforces this point of view. That God’s true sense of justice will be expressed on the Last Day, the Final Judgment. God will handle sinners. Our job is stop sinning by becoming holy through participation in the Christ and treat life as (truly) sacred.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

A very interesting and well presented case, SonofMonica . Obviously I can’t touch your heart reactions to the Law, and I understand them too. The Law doesn’t exist to make us comfortable . I went through a lot of internal struggle and a huge amount of prayer before I rejected societal norms on the Law. It was an extremely difficult process for me, partly because of my upbringing of appreciating and agreeing with American values, and intensified because as I approached this position I had family members telling me that I was following the voices of demons and the spirit of the Anti-Christ. I was torn by doubts and fears just hammering at me even as the light became brighter and brighter before my inner eyes. I was moving toward conversion to the Catholic faith at the same time the rest of this was happening. I knew I was right; Reason and the Lord, and countless supporting evidences and signs, showed me I was right on all these points of both faith and law. But it was incredibly hard.

Obviously, it was also extremely hard for my Protestant family. I’ve never, ever felt so alone as I felt in those months. I felt that I had some kind of “disease,” and people just didn’t know I was infected, but if they knew, they would shun and reject me. And I know that that feeling was true. I’ve never seen any of my friendships with non-Catholics as dependable since then. When I receive a compliment from a liberal Christian or an agnostic or atheist friend who doesn’t know my beliefs about the Law, I often feel sadness rather than happiness, because the thought immediately occurs to me, “This won’t last, and she wouldn’t say this if she knew.” So woe is me! Lol.

Anyway, we don’t have to agree on these justice issues, but I understand how hard it is for you to consider such views. The Law is hard, and Hell is harder still, but in my view, the Law is far harder for people to accept because it’s about the here and now, we can “imagine it,” and it is absolutely contradictory to our societal norms and the upbringing most of us have shared. The Law’s penalties aren’t “distant” like Hell is.

I’ll respond to the various points you made in another set of posts. I’ve got one ready now.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

So I have it in my head that political corruption is worse if the Church is involved in the political realm because of our call to holiness.

Could you elaborate on this? I’m not sure why the Church’s call to holiness would make political corruption in the state worse if the Church were involved. It seems to me that, rather, the Church’s call to holiness would provide a valuable conduit for holiness to be infused into the government. Secular rulers aren’t less likely to be corrupt than spiritual leaders.

Oh, I think I see what you mean. Do you mean the corruption in the Church would be worse? If so, I can very easily believe that’s true, because power has a corrupting tendency. However, the Church doesn’t have the luxury the monks do, of abandoning the world. The Church has the duty to actively transform the world in godliness, and to share her truth and glory with everyone, causing the whole world to come into unity with and submission to Christ the Lord.

I’ll elaborate on this more, making this first post about the separation of Church and State, as I see it.

The Church’s morality is the only true morality. Therefore laws need to be based on that morality, for there is no other. Therefore when people shut out the state and determine their own morals and make laws based on those morals, they’re building a house on sand, one without a foundation. To make good laws, they have to be built on true moral principles. Which is why we have things like abortion laws and homosexual marriage today. Because our laws are based on the “will of the people,” which is not always the “will of God.” And the will of the people has a preeminent position over the will of God; if the people will something and God doesn’t, the people win in this government system. At the very least, it should be in the Constitution that the only valid source of moral principles on which laws can be based is the morality of Rome.

The “pillar and foundation” of truth is in the Church. Separation of Church and State is therefore separation between the “pillar and foundation of truth” and the state- and the law. If law is not built on the truth, on what is it built? Jesus said, “Whoever hears my words and puts them into practice is like a man who builds his house upon the rock.” If our final authority is the “will of the people,” though, then what are we but the man who builds his house on the sand? We become a man who hears Jesus’ words and puts them into practice when he wants to. Our will, not God’s will, is the final authority in our government. Man is what is elevated, man is what is glorified, and God only insofar as He wants what man wants.

Romans 13 says that all governing authorities are God’s servants, and Christ said all authority in Heaven and on Earth has been handed over to Him. Authorities are therefore answerable to God for their laws and judgments, and if answerable to God, how can they not be answerable to His chief representative, His own Vicar, the Pastor of all the Body of Christ (including Christian rulers) on Earth?

In addition, the separation of Church and State is a violation of the Church’s call to spread the Gospel throughout all of creation (Mark 16:15), that every part of the world may be brought into harmony with His will. Nations, just like individuals, that put their will above of the will of God are attacking the foundations of holy submission on which salvation is built. The outrageous immorality of many of the laws and popular beliefs of our day, views that Medieval Christians would have fainted to hear mention of (though they had their own problems too, obviously), is therefore unsurprising.

One more theological point on this matter, worth mentioning, is that the Medieval ascent of Christian monarchy, united with truth, appears to have been prophesied in the Scripture as a good thing. The Book of Daniel has some amazing prophecies of the future. In these prophecies it describes the rise of the Fourth Beast, the Roman Empire, and the coming of the Righteous One around the same time. It says the RIghteous One will be cut off and Jerusalem destroyed, and then the kingdoms of men will be handed over to the saints of God, who will rule (Dan. 7:18, 27). Directly after the Roman Empire, the Medieval Ages came, a period in which Christians ruled over all the lands of the known world. And Daniel 7’s prophecy is only talking about rulership of the known world, as is made clear from the fact that it says the Roman Empire devours the entire world, and the Babylonian Empire ruled the whole world. Which these did, if one considers it to be the known world the prophecy was talking about.

The New Testament also appears to reflect upon these matters prophetically. Revelation 20 describes a time when, for a thousand years, Christ and the souls of His saints will reign over the world. Daniel 7 predicts the time when the saints would rule over the world would come directly after the fall of the Roman Empire. Revelation 20 says the period where the saints will rule shall last for a thousand years, and the Medieval Ages lasted a thousand years. Then, Revelation 20 says the devil will be released and will deceive all the nations. It is not hard to see how this applies to the physical and spiritual disasters that came at the end of the Medieval Ages, all the way through modern times. 2 Thessalonians says that sin is lawlessness. Since the end of the Medieval Ages, laws have been repealed, justice has been bid farewell, and new times have come. The Bible, if this prophetic interpretation is valid, supports these points about the union of Church and State. Even if this prophetic interpretation is invalid (which it may be, though I think it makes sense), Daniel 7:27 nonetheless supports the rule of Christians over the nations under heaven, in unity (second half of the verse) with the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have it in my head that punishment by the government is less merciful if the Church is involved because of the teachings of Jesus involving turning the other cheek. Right or wrong, I see the principles that sprang from Reformation as an inevitability brought because of the civil entanglement of the Church.

The Reformation came about because of the rebelliousness and pride of man. Some Church leaders abused their authority, and rebels threw off that authority. The Protestant Reformation created thousands of different interpretations of doctrine and truth. Because it was believed at the time that idolaters or heretics could justly be executed, hundreds of different Protestant sects ended up setting on one another tooth and nail. It was vicious and bloody, and finally, weary of centuries of fighting, Protestant and Enlightenment philosophers settled on religious freedom as the only way out of perpetual warfare. A number of the other modern freedoms from morality followed from that one, over time.

The implemented hard justice of the Law (tempered by mercy) existed for over a thousand years of Catholic rulership without being “inevitably overthrown.” Abandoning them became next to inevitable for Protestants because they couldn’t stand to just keep fighting and killing each other for centuries. Which would not have been a problem for them anyway if not for their divisions and heresies. Man loved himself first, and so chose the ways of man and built his own house on his own soil; and here we are today.

Seeing statements to the effect that every human being should be subject to the Holy Roman Pontiff in temporal affairs sends shivers down my spine. It changes the view in my head from Shepherd to Dictator. From Bishop to Emperor. Somehow, it seems appropriate that the Bishop of Rome should, like the rest of us, be required to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s–not be Caesar. If the Messiah did not come to be a temporal ruler, but instead a humble servant, what basis does his vicar have to set himself up as a temporal authority, or even be involved in such things?

Well, first of all you have to understand that Peter did act, through the Holy Spirit, as a temporal authority at times. The most dramatic example of this is probably when the Spirit executed Ananias and Sapphira because they did not give all their possessions to the Church and lied to Him about it. He did all this through Peter, His chief representative on Earth (Acts 5). This was a temporal matter, a question of goods, but Peter presided, declared the sentence, and the Spirit fulfilled it. While the case was certainly greatly about the evil of lying to the Spirit, it also shows how Peter has authority to judge in temporal matters.

Temporal and spiritual affairs are closely entwined, as can easily be seen from Jesus’ vast numbers of teachings about money and using it to do God’s will. He didn’t see a schism between regular business or daily life and God; He saw how God’s Spirit must fill all things. You do well to bring up the case of the denarii and Caesar. This does indeed emphasize the necessity of Christian submission to the secular authorities. It’s one of many passages that refer to this. Jesus lived His life in submission to these authorities, and so should we, and the Pope would do well to do so as well. I’ll explain that last.

Jesus said after He rose from the dead, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). Jesus’ chief representative shares that authority. However, Jesus also submitted to all earthly authorities during His time on Earth. I’ve struggled for quite some time with the question of how much authority the Pope has, what its limits might be. It appears to me that he does not have any limits except the will of God which will judge his efforts. I believe all the authority of Christ has passed on to him because he is Christ’s chief representative. HOWEVER, this does not mean that he does well to grasp this authority. The Scripture says that Jesus, who was by nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but humbled Himself and took the likeness of a slave (Philippians 2:3-11). The passage also says that we are called to have the same attitude, to not do anything for vainglory or selfish ambition, and to do all in service to the children of God. This passage is especially relevant for the Pope, though it is relevant for all Christians, because the Pope is more than anyone else, by virtue of his office, “in the form of God,” as Philippians points out Christ is. The Pope is Christ’s chief representative; he is Christ for the whole Church. He must be the servant, he must reduce himself and humble himself to become nothing, although he is everything. He must not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

Thus I see the bulls where one or two popes claimed equality with God in dominion over all secular kingdoms as negative things for the Church. In fact, they did provoke rulers to rebellion and to seizing power over offices and powers the Church had owned, so these bulls’ circulation appears to have had an overall negative impact on the Church. I don’t view those popes as having done right in asserting their power, though the truths they expressed are sublime. The popes have incredible power over Heaven and Earth, the power of Christ, yet having the form of God, they are called to follow the example of their Lord and not consider equality with God something to be grasped. They should humble themselves, taking the appearance of a slave, or one submissive to temporal laws and secular masters, even though they have the right to throw all these authorities to the winds as though they were dust under their feet.

The Medieval Church did not enact penalties itself but made judgments on cases and gave decrees about what is right, and then left the secular authorities to enforce them. Which the secular authorities did, for they recognized the Church’s power and moral right, and the Church and State worked together.

Continued in the next post . . .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

And despite the fact that we live in a “modernistic” society and are subject to the winds of change, I think in my mind it only lends more credibility to the Christian idea of free will and voluntary submission to Christ if the Vatican stays out of the civil realm of other governments. How can we be truly following Christ if we are simply forced to refrain from act X, less we be condemned by the Church to be stoned by the government? I think the Christian idea is that we are called to be holy out of love for Christ, the love (law) he has imprinted on our hearts.

Agreed. That Christian ideal is what everyone should be. And of course there will be the woman in Medieval society who would commit abortion if she could, but she chooses not to out of fear of the Law. However, even though this woman is impure, this is a better situation than the society where the woman remains impure and goes and commits the abortion, killing her child.

The Law exists in large part to protect society, though it also has a purifying element in it as well. Often, though not always, it is through suffering that people gain purity, or awareness of their wrong deeds. I’ve heard people who say their time in prison saved them. Through suffering, many Christians rise toward perfection. It has power to reveal people’s true character and it motivates them to either seek what is right or to curse God. But the Law also should protect society.

Consider also the situation of a woman who would commit adultery if not for the Law. She decides, out of fear, not to seduce a man, and that man’s soul is saved as a consequence, though the woman might die in impurity. However, there also is truth that “one sin leads to another.” Sins lead to more sins, and if the woman went through with her impure desires, she would have probably sunk deeper into spiritual darkness than she did when fear restrained her.

Fear is the lowest form of submission, but it is better than open rebellion.

We see no civil pronouncements from the early popes. Why is that? The first Christians were Christians because they wanted to be, and acted like Christians because they wanted to. They were the persecuted, not the persecutors.

Yes, they were living in the fulfillment of the Law. They were living in love rather than fear. There aren’t any civil pronouncements from the early popes for two reasons. One is that they had no secular power in that time period (except by right, from God), and second, they were living in submission to the governing authorities, just as Christ did. Which doesn’t mean they had no right to power. It’s just that they didn’t use it, and they did not consider equality with God something to grasp, even though they had the right to that power. They were transforming the whole of society, though, from the bottom up, and in the end the emperors and civil laws also were converted.

I believe it is possible to say that the Church lost its way in terms of dealing with the powers of the civil realm in the medieval period, without having to say that it ever taught false doctrine or became apostate.

Sure it’s possible to say that, and one can be a good Catholic and believe that. I personally don’t believe this, but you can, if that’s what you believe.

After all, what business does a King have appointing a Bishop? And vice versa.

Samuel anointed Saul and then David as king. If the Old Testament Prophet, who represented God to the old Israel, had power to anoint secular rulers, how much more shall he who stands in leadership over the entire New Israel, in place of and in the authority of He to whom all power in Heaven and Earth has been given?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Last post of this series, I think .

So, when I see a verse like “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” I don’t see that as a statement that Christians should practice mercy in addition to justice. I see it as a statement that Christians should stay out of the administration of God’s justice. So I’m not saying that a Christian cannot be a civil Judge and apply the civil law, just that this teaching of Jesus is about how a Christian is not to be dispensing the punishments of God’s law. And that to do so would be immoral, because none of us are innocent.

I don’t understand this. Romans 13 is quite clear that rulers are God’s servants to do what is right, and they do not wield the sword for nothing. What justice should they perform other than God’s justice? And who shall they wield the sword against but the one that transgresses true justice? And how shall they know what justice is without God’s revelation? Human conjecture? Do we have less knowledge of justice now than Israel did before the First Coming?

“Judge not, lest ye be judged” sounds like a grave warning to me. The Catechism says that we can objectively say an act is bad, but the idea is that we are not to judge the individual for having done it and certainly not cast the first stone.

As we are individuals and citizens, definitely this is true. Rulers also have a responsibility to live this in their personal lives, but as rulers they have another responsibility: to provide justice to the nation. Which requires judgment. Romans 13 confirms this.

It seems to me that the fact that Jesus focused so much on hell only reinforces this point of view. That God’s true sense of justice will be expressed on the Last Day, the Final Judgment. God will handle sinners. Our job is stop sinning by becoming holy through participation in the Christ and treat life as (truly) sacred.

Yes, but that holiness is not meant to be restricted to us but to permeate every aspect of society. Popes Leo XIII and John Paul II said that justice is the road to peace. Good laws may ensure God has less sinners to punish on the Last Day, which is part of the reason He gave them to Israel. When Israel followed the Law faithfully, He blessed them. When they transgressed it, He cursed them. This mirrors what will happen on the Last Day, when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed.

Jesus’ teachings on Heaven and Hell brought the gaze of believers from the exterior to the interior. It did not negate what had been taught about the exterior, but it showed how what is true of the exterior (The Law, justice and corporal punishment) is true in even deeper and more profound ways inside the soul, for the Word incises the spirit as a keen and double edged sword (Heb. 4:12). That transformation of the soul makes the Law no longer apply to the faithful Christian, because he fulfills all its requirements out of love rather than bondage. However, the true Christian’s freedom is not found among non-Christians, and relieving them from fear of punishment for doing what is evil does not help them but unties the last bond on their wicked natures.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Here’s a brilliant encyclical by Pope Leo XIII on Separation of Church and State. I’ve almost finished reading it now, and it’s really, really good. Section 31 is even prophetic, where Leo predicts that the liberal Western government system as designed and fought for, incorporating and enshrining separation of Church and State, “most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice.” Which is happening today, as our societies strip themselves of all religious imagery, challenging the words, “In God we trust,” prayer in schools, and all display of Christianity in public places. Such was not the case by any stretch of the imagination back in 1885 when this encyclical was first promulgated, but his words are being fulfilled today, just as he predicted. The whole encyclical is filled with godly wisdom, foreign and repugnant, however, to the modern mind as it criticizes the modern government forms and the false political doctrines that originated from the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Here’s the Encyclical, in case you’re interested:
newadvent.org/library/docs_le13id.htm