Thomas Aquinas, quoting Augustine, condemned “the cruel thirst for vengeance”, and yet writes:
**a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.” **
How it is right to put to death thieves?
I don’t think the quote says that thieves should be killed just for theft. I think it makes more sense if you look at it this way: if someone takes your property, you still have a right to that property. With me so far? Now, if the person does not restore it when you ask, you still have a right to it. For example, if a random thug on the street kicks me out of my house, I continue to have a legitimate right to my house. So what can I do? Well, one thing I could do is call the police. If the police come and the guy still refuses to give up the house, they can try to enter and force him out. And if he starts shooting at them, they can shoot back and potentially kill him.
Think about that scenario for a second: in that scenario, the thief is killed. Does that mean it is right to put thieves to death? No. He was killed for shooting at the police, and they merely defended themselves for being attacked while doing a just action.
In the same way, if Nation A sends an army to Nation B to recover stolen property, I don’t think Nation B is being killed because they are thieves, but only because they started attacking an army that was justly going there to recover stolen property.
Does that explanation make sense?
More than this, some of the soldiers are not the thieves so there is all the collateral damage as well.
There is collateral damage. I don’t think a nation can go to war if the collateral damage is likely to be greater than the original injury. And I don’t think St. Augustine or St. Thomas said otherwise.
How could it ever be right to put down a rebellion that is not trying to kill anyone?
If the rebels were under the lawful authority of a ruler, that ruler could enforce his authority over rebel territory by sending in people to regulate it. If he thought it was likely that the rebels would shoot at his people, he could send armed guards to check. If those armed guards got shot at, they could legitimately defend themselves by shooting back. Thus, the rebels could die, but the ruler wouldn’t have done anything wrong.
Does that make sense?
Can capital punishment be applied to tax evaders then?
Ordinarily, no. I think, though, that a state could force tax evaders to pay their taxes, so long as the taxes were just. And if the tax evaders started shooting at the people who came to collect, the tax collectors could legitimately defend themselves by calling the police and potentially getting the tax evaders killed – not for evading taxes, but for shooting at people who then defend themselves by shooting back.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if it does. God bless!
