God did NOT command the early Hebrews to kill women and children in warfare

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

Even if we were to think that the Pontifical Biblical Commission presupposes that slavery, divorce, and extermination warfare were “valid” under the Old Law, we would still have to determine precisely what “valid” means in the commission’s understanding.

In 1866, the Holy Office issued an instruction reaffirming that slavery, considered in its essential nature is not contrary to the natural and divine law.

The instruction, signed by Pope Pius IX declares: "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given".

It’s important to understand the context of the practice of slavery throughout history. For example, there is a form of slavery called “indentured” in which a person sells in advance their entire life’s labour to another. They may have full legal rights outside the limits of the contract into which they have entered. Chattel slavery is a far different matter.

From Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802):
newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not violate any right of the slave. For **slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the dominion of another to the extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely **(Comp. Instit. Civil., L, vii).

I’m betting that’s what the Pontifical Biblical Commission means by “valid” is similar to what Pope Pius IX declared regarding slavery. That is, it is not inherintly against Divine and Natural Law, and is possible that it can be practiced justly in accordance within ecclesiastical and civil laws. However, in every age, it has been a source of abuse, and so the Church has rightly worked to abolish it. This is much like the moral teaching regarding the death penalty and war. These acts are not inherently immoral, but in almost all cases, they are practiced immorally.

Moral theology regarding divorce is much more complicated. See

Catholic Encyclopedia - Divorce (in Moral Theology)
newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

Some Catholic tradition insists that, “that there was a real permission, a dispensation granted by God, as otherwise the practice sanctioned in the law would be blamed as sinful in some part of the Old Testament. Moreover, Christ (loc. cit.) seems to have rendered illicit what was illicit in the beginning, but what had really been allowed later, even though it was allowed “by reason of the hardness of your heart” (St. Thomas, III, Supplem., Q. lxvii, a. 3; Bellarmine, “Controvers. de matrim.”, I, xvii; Sanchez, " De matrim.”, X, disp. i. n. 7; Palmieri, “De matrimonio christ.”, Rome, 1880, 133 sqq.; Wernz, “Jus decretalium”, IV, n. 696, not. 12; etc)." (ibid)

 

[Malachi4U]

Steve O'Brien:

…Some apologists will be tempted to say that God did issue such a command, and that he is the Lord of life and death and may do as he wills. I can’t accept this…

Theophilus,

I accept whatever God does without question as we all should. Though we do not allways understand His actions we must still have "F"aith in Him and trust Him. He gave us cancer, poverty, pain, sorrow and freewill.

I do not understand all of Gods plan but I do have "F"aith in our Heavenly Father and that He has reasons for all He does and the gifts we have. Sometimes it is only through illness or other tragities that we find Him and His truth.

A prisoner of Christ

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

itsjustdave1988:

In 1866, the Holy Office issued an instruction reaffirming that slavery, considered in its essential nature, is not contrary to the natural and divine law.

The instruction, signed by Pope Pius IX, declares: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

I believe that Dave, with the best intentions, is walking onto a perilous limb that’s starting to crack. Let’s not think that Catholics can accept any kind of slavery as compatible with the natural and divine law. In section 80 of his 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor, Pope John Paul II, citing the authority of Vatican II, emphatically teaches that slavery, like genocide, abortion, and contraception, is intrinsically evil:

***"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature ‘incapable of being ordered’ to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed ‘intrinsically evil’ (*intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that ‘there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object’.131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: ‘Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator’.132

"With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general’"133.**

Let’s accept the guidance of Vatican II and the current Pope on the intrinsically evil nature of both slavery and genocide.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

Sorry, but the Church’s teaching regarding slavery is well known and documented. Pope John Paul II does not attempt to distinguish the different forms of slavery. He is not charging that all forms of slavery are unjust. You don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s a 1999 article which bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Church, which addresses Church teaching on slavery:

Slavery and the Catholic Church
users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html

It does address the distinction between differing forms of slavery and the traditional and still current Catholic teaching regarding slavery. Some forms are intrinsically evil, but some forms are not.

Here’s an excerpt:

… there are different forms of slavery. Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to racial slavery in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Even today we can see prisoners picking up litter along interstates and highways accompanied by armed guards. Also the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under very limiting circumstances (Panzer, p. 3). However, such circumstances are very rare today. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

I’m more interested in why you feel you can disobey the Pontifical Bible Commission in asserting your thesis without solid argument.

The Catholic Magisterium teaches, quoting St. Jerome, the: "office of a commentator … is to set forth not what he himself would prefer, but what his author says." (Providentissumus Deus, 13) It seems to me you are offering what you yourself prefer, but not what the author himself says regarding Divine herem.

Furthermore *Providentissumus Deus *charges us with a rule for interpreting Scripture, “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.” You have departed from the literal and obvious sense of Scripture yet have not provided a solid argument in opposition to Ven. Cardinal Newman and St. Thomas Aquinas as to why their interpretation, using the literal and obvious sense, is untenable. You certainly haven’t provided magisterial evidence that their interpretation based upon the literal and obvious sense is to be rejected.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

itsjustdave1988:

Pope John Paul II does not attempt to distinguish the different forms of slavery. He is not charging that all forms of slavery are unjust.

We should interpret Pope John Paul II’s (and Vatican II’s) condemnation of the intrinsic evil of slavery in the light of *CCC * 2414:

"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason–selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian–lead to the ** enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit."

Keep and spead the Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

You have a surface knowledge of Catholic doctrine, it seems, at least with regard to the issue of slavery.

I suggest you consider another article from Catholic Answer’s *This Rock *magazine, entitled “***Let My People Go: the Catholic Church and Slavery” ***by Mark Brumley, found here: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1201

Here’s an excerpt:

"However,** there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will.** Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, **people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude). **

These forms of servitude or slavery differ in kind from what we are calling chattel slavery. While prisoners of war and criminals can lose their freedom against their will, they do not become mere property of their captors, even when such imprisonment is just. They still possess basic, inalienable human rights and may not justly be subjected to certain forms of punishment—torture, for example. Similarly, indentured servants “sell” their labor, not their inalienable rights, and may not contract to provide services which are immoral. Moreover, they freely agree to exchange their labor for some benefit such as transportation, food, lodging, et cetera. Consequently, their servitude is not involuntary.

The Second Vatican Council condemned slavery (i.e., chattel slavery)

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’d like to move toward wrapping up my contribution to this thread by returning from slavery to the thread’s primary topic: my contention that the ancient Hebrews had to be mistaken in their belief that God had commanded them to slaughter women, children, infants, cripples, and other con-combatants in what is called *herem * (“ban”) warfare.

If we fail to recognize that this command was nonexistent, then we implicitly accuse God of contradicting himself in Scripture. The reason why a blatant contradiction would emerge is this: the Old Testament itself says, “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous” (Ex 23:7 [RSV]; *CCC * 2261). Speaking in the name of God, the Catholic Church tells us that all those who are not combatants or who are not criminals convicted of a capital offense are “innocent” (*CCC * 2263). Consequently, if God actually ordered the killing of non-combatants in warfare, then the Bible is contradicting itself. This is impossible. ***Ergo, notwithstanding the problematic passages which merely appear to indicate the contrary, God never commanded herem * warfare.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Faith_is_First]

The instruction, signed by Pope Pius IX, declares: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

Please show me exactly where you got this.

 

[Faith_is_First]

I’d like to move toward wrapping up my contribution to this thread by returning from slavery to the thread’s primary topic: my contention that the ancient Hebrews had to be mistaken in their belief that God had commanded them to slaughter women, children, infants, cripples, and other con-combatants in what is called *herem *(“ban”) warfare.

If we fail to recognize that this command was nonexistent, then we implicitly accuse God of contradicting himself in Scripture. The reason why a blatant contradiction would emerge is this: the Old Testament itself says, “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous” (Ex 23:7 [RSV]; *CCC *2261). Speaking in the name of God, the Catholic Church tells us that all those who are not combatants or who are not criminals convicted of a capital offense are “innocent” (*CCC *2263). Consequently, if God actually ordered the killing of non-combatants in warfare, then the Bible is contradicting itself. This is impossible. ***Ergo, notwithstanding the problematic passages which merely appear to indicate the contrary, God never commanded ***herem warfare.

And your point is??? Any actions of the crusaders that killed non-combatants was condemned by the church. Period.

 

[fix]

Faith_is_First:

Please show me exactly where you got this.

My understanding is that the Church has always taught that not every type of slavery is intrinsically evil. Only chattel slavery is intrinsically evil. Some types of slavery, such as indentured servitude, have been tolerated for various reasons. There may come a time in the future, if there were some type of cataclysmic event, that could usher slavery back in for certain reasons.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

Thanks for sharing your view. Ven Newman and St. Thomas Aquinas, however, are more convincing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Faith_is_First:

Please show me exactly where you got this.

I found it here: Fr. Philip Kaufman, *Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, *New and Expanded Edition, (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), pg 48.

It is also reportedly cited in J.F.MAXWELL, ‘The Development of Catholic Doctrine Concerning Slavery’, World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.306-307.

I cannot verify that their citations are accurate, as I don’t have an copy of the instruction. However, those oppossed to such infamous dissenters as Fr. Kaufman have not refuted this claim, so I presume it is accurate.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Where does God command people to kill infants in war?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It seems to me that one of the most serious problems for contemporary Catholic apologists is the fact that Old Testament passages (e.g., in Deut 20, Josh 6 and 8, and 1 Sam 15) appear to indicate that God commanded the early Hebrews to kill women, children, and other non-combatants in warfare. I suggest that the correct way to handle these texts is to deny that God ever issued such a command. I thus agree with the New American Bible annotator on 1 Sam 15:1-3 and Jesuit scholar John L. McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible s.v. “Ban” and “Joshua.”

Those commands are sub-Christian - & we should have no qualms about saying so. “Love your enemies” is simply not compatible with the pious (?) extermination of the Amalekites commanded in 1 Sam. 15.​

Otherwise, it’s inconsistent to condemn carpet-bombing, or the rape of Poland by the Nazis. Hitler would have been Joshua, had he only lived at the right time. Yet Joshua is in the Roman Martyrology - & Hitler is…unlikely to be. If it’s a sin for Hitler to commit genocide, it is a sin for Samuel to command the extermination of Amalek. It is relativism of the most blatant kind to try to excuse mass murder for the greater glory of Jehovah, while objecting to mass murder for the well-being of the Volk.

These problems are completely unnecessary - for it is perfectly possible to read the Bible as a progressive revelation: this is supported by Hebrews 1; so if Christ can be imperfectly known to begin with, why cannot the same apply to morality ? This woud allow the more repellent aspects of OT morality to have a place as part of an unfolding understanding of God’s Will & character, without requiring one to perform moral acrobatics in a vain attempt to see 1 Samuel 15 as being no less eternally valid than Matthew 5.44.

To force 1 Samuel 15 to be as unconditionally valid a revelation of God’s character as Matthew 5.44, is in effect to pull down that gospel to the moral level of one of the nastier OT passages. Which is most unwise

If such distortion of the Gospel is required by Biblical Inerrancy - & it’s not; unless one thinks of BI as working in a way that guarantees the timeless perfection of all statements in the Bible with moral implications - then it’s too high a price to pay for BI. A doctrine of BI that requires Christ to be no better than Hitler is not worthy of belief.

But what about the apparent conflict between this denial and the Catholic doctrines of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy? I believe that we can reason as follows: even though the ancient Hebrews erroneously thought that God had ordered these massacres, this underlying false supposition is not truly asserted and affirmed by the sacred authors, who merely report it without approbation. What counts as far as inspiration is concerned is what the Biblical author “truly wanted to affirm” (CCC 109)–in the sense in which, and to the extent to which, he wanted to affirm it.
Some apologists will be tempted to say that God did issue such a command, and that he is the Lord of life and death and may do as he wills. I can’t accept this. To say that the Lord ordered ancient Hebrew soldiers to slaughter infants and cripples in Canaanite cities would blasphemously transform the God of love into a monster.

Well said. That sort of idea is a moral abomination, because it destroys the moral character of God; it denies that God is Righteous & Gracious. It makes God no better than some of the other gods of the OT period. STM as though Divine Sovereignty is being mistaken for Divine whimsicality.

This contention would also contradict the Magisterium’s teaching in CCC 2261:

“Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: ‘Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.’ Ex 23:7] The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Sophie]

Steve,
.
The Bible is inerrant. To believe what is in your post #1 is to believe that the Miracle of the Loaves was not really Jesus’ multiplication of five loaves of bread to feed five thousand with crumbs left over, but to believe that the true “miracle” was Jesus convincing the people to share food they already had with them. It’s rewriting Scripture.
God doesn’t have to explain Himself to us. If he can cause a man to die for touching the Arc of the Covenant to keep it from falling off of a donkey’s back, what can he not do?
God bless

The Catholic Church does teach the Bible is inerrant, even though it contains many errors. For instance: bats are birds, when they are really mammals-Leviticus ll:13-19, Joseph’s father is Jacob-Matt. 1:16 or Joseph’s father is Heli - Luke 3:23, there are perfect and righteous-Job 1:1, Genesis 7:1 or all have sinned- Romans 3:23, Romans 3:10., etc., etc., etc.

And speaking of donkeys, how about Balaam’s talking ***?, Numbers 22:28-30. Balaam and his donkey have a conversation like it’s a common occurance! So if the Bible is inerrant, are we to believe that donkeys can talk? And check out Matt. 21:2-7, Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem is on an *** AND A COLT! Both at the same time! Like a circus act? These are just a few of many examples as to why reasonable people cannot seriously take the Bible literally.

 

[Sophie]

Along with the many things I’ve listed above and the many people God supposedly kills (it’s been estimated that He kills 3 and a half million) I’ve learned not to take the Bible literally. It can be a very bizarre book!

 

[Roy5]

I COULD NOT WORSHIP A GOD WHO ORDERS GENOCIDE
A few thoughts.

1. I recall years ago reading in scripture of how God commanded Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai - etc. I decided then and there that either those stories are false or I would have to forsake my Christian faith. Genocide is evil, and a god who orders it is no god to or for me. There have been apologists for Hitler (very few, fortunately) who viewed the wholesale slaughter of Jews as the will of God. Outrageous.

 2. This led me early on to reject the notion that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It certainly contains the Word of God, but there is much in the Old Testament that defies elementary Christian ethnics. As for the New Testament, some of that is to be questioned, also. St. Paul, for example, commanded women to be submissive to their husbands, cover their heads during worship - etc. We live in a different age and time when such traditions properly seem antiquated. 

 3. The policy of those early Hebrews who invaded the Promised Land (if that actually happened - there seems to be no evidence that Moses and the ancient Jews ever lived in Egypt) was to kill off the indigenous tribes. The Bible is full of such horror stories. Even Purim (recently observed), based on the book of Esther, is a tale of hatred. As I recall, 75,000 Persians were killed in an act of revenge. I don't see this as a cause for great celebration. Sadly, there are Israelis today (a minority, hopefully) who would get rid of the Arabs left in their nation - Christians and Muslims, both - if the world were not watching. 

 4. Which brings me to the last point. The mess in the Middle East today is in large measure the result of seriously flawed US policy dictated by a powerful Israel lobby and millions of Christian Zionists who believe that the Jews are God's chosen people. Either we're all God's chosen people (my belief) or none of us are. If the USA had been genuinely pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian from the outset we might have avoided everything from 60 years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the tragedy of 9-11. Until our government frees itself from Israel-first neocons, influential fundamentalist preachers like Hagee and Robertson, and intimidated, cowardly politians we never will have peace in the Middle East. Israel would be far better off, Arab and Muslim bitterness would subside, and we could move toward reconciliation. Needed: a viable Palestinian state, return to 1967 borders (when Israel launched its glorified preemptive 6-day war), East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and compensation for Palestinians robbed of their homes, etc. There is plenty of blame to go around. Arab terrrorism and creeping Israeli settlements are among major stumbling blocks, but so is USA unwillingness to be evenhanded and fair.

 Pray and work for peace and justice in the Holy Land.