The Church prescribes the death penalty

[mcliffor]

I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on witchcraft that the Synod of Padderborn in 785 prescribed the death penalty to anyone who punished a witch with death as an effort to counter fanaticism. But I always believed, because of apologetics articles and the JP II’s writings that the Church could not prescribe penalty, that it was up to the state. Here we have an example of the Church prescribing the death penalty, a responsibility supposedly left to the civil authorities, for a crime which hardly merits execution according to the CCC.

"None the less the general desire of the clergy to check fanaticism is well illustrated by such a council as that of Paderborn (785). Although it enacts that sorcerers are to be reduced to serfdom and made over to the service of the Church, a decree was also passed in the following terms: ‘Whosoever, blinded by the devil and infected with pagan errors, holds another person for a witch that eats human flesh, and therefore burns her, eats her flesh, or gives it to others to eat, shall be punished with death.’ "

I have a hard time believing that the Dominican inquisitors in the later Middle Ages didn’t themselves impose the death penalty. Given the number of trials they performed, how can we possibly believe that they were against the punishments they knew heretics were bound to receive? And what about the bishops in during the MA who held temporal power? Wouldn’t they be responsible for the hangings and executions that took place under their leadership?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on witchcraft that the Synod of Padderborn in 785 prescribed the death penalty to anyone who punished a witch with death as an effort to counter fanaticism. But I always believed, because of apologetics articles and the JP II’s writings that the Church could not prescribe penalty, that it was up to the state. Here we have an example of the Church prescribing the death penalty, a responsibility supposedly left to the civil authorities, for a crime which hardly merits execution according to the CCC.

"None the less the general desire of the clergy to check fanaticism is well illustrated by such a council as that of Paderborn (785). Although it enacts that sorcerers are to be reduced to serfdom and made over to the service of the Church, a decree was also passed in the following terms: ‘Whosoever, blinded by the devil and infected with pagan errors, holds another person for a witch that eats human flesh, and therefore burns her, eats her flesh, or gives it to others to eat, shall be punished with death.’ "

I have a hard time believing that the Dominican inquisitors in the later Middle Ages didn’t themselves impose the death penalty. Given the number of trials they performed, how can we possibly believe that they were against the punishments they knew heretics were bound to receive? And what about the bishops in during the MA who held temporal power? Wouldn’t they be responsible for the hangings and executions that took place under their leadership?

Paderborn wasn’t an ecumenical (universal) council of the Church but a local chin-wag between the political authorities, some newly-converted Saxons, and the area’s bishops. What today we would call a conference to forge a partnership.

It is the responsibility of political leaders to decide what crimes are to be offences and what the punishment will be, though the Church has opinions on the matter. The Church is responsible for deciding wh is and who is not a member in good standing, and for defining her dogmas.

In practise there can be some confusion in roles. For instance in Britain the courts, and not the police or prosecuting lawyers, decide who is guilty and what the penalty should be. However in practise if the prosecutors decide to drop a case it is tantamount to saying there is no case worth answering, and if the police decide to ignore a matter normally it is difficult for the victim to take it further. Then there is a modern tendency for courts to interpret laws so broadly as to effectively legislate from the bench.

However always, in theory, the Church doesn’t decide secular penalties for crimes.

 

[mosher]

I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on witchcraft that the Synod of Padderborn in 785 prescribed the death penalty to anyone who punished a witch with death as an effort to counter fanaticism. But I always believed, because of apologetics articles and the JP II’s writings that the Church could not prescribe penalty, that it was up to the state. Here we have an example of the Church prescribing the death penalty, a responsibility supposedly left to the civil authorities, for a crime which hardly merits execution according to the CCC.

"None the less the general desire of the clergy to check fanaticism is well illustrated by such a council as that of Paderborn (785). Although it enacts that sorcerers are to be reduced to serfdom and made over to the service of the Church, a decree was also passed in the following terms: ‘Whosoever, blinded by the devil and infected with pagan errors, holds another person for a witch that eats human flesh, and therefore burns her, eats her flesh, or gives it to others to eat, shall be punished with death.’ "

I have a hard time believing that the Dominican inquisitors in the later Middle Ages didn’t themselves impose the death penalty. Given the number of trials they performed, how can we possibly believe that they were against the punishments they knew heretics were bound to receive? And what about the bishops in during the MA who held temporal power? Wouldn’t they be responsible for the hangings and executions that took place under their leadership?

Sometimes the Church did. The apologetics that I often hear about this issue are similar to your experience but in fact they are not historically accurate. It is in fact more nuanced than that. It is more historically honest to respect the different distinctions of the role of clerics in the imposition of capital punishment (or any other type of punishment).

First you have the easy case where clergy do not have magistrate authority and thus no authority of sentencing. (such as the Spanish Inquisition under Queen Isabella)

Second you have the case where clergy had the authority to effect punishment. (such as the Roman Inquisition)

Third you have the nuanced cause where the cleric was also a magistrate and thus wore two hats. So, the same person would do two acts. That person would first make a judgment for the church in his capacity as a cleric (usually a bishop) and then after that they would put on their magistrate hat and effect some type of punishment imposed by the state. (such as the case in France and England in their respective tribunals)