The New Testament church did not wage
war “after the flesh” to combat theologically aberrant souls or
seek to rule over those without. Instead, apart from the passive
discipline of disfellowship, it relied upon spiritual power to
discipline those within. While for those without prayer was enjoined,
rather than raising up armies to subdue them, while also calling the
civil authorizes to uphold their own just laws that would protect
them from unjust treatment. (click on reference to view: Jn. 18:36;
1Cor. 4:19-21; 5:4,5,12,13; 1Tim. 1:20; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 10:3,4; Eph.
6:12 ; Acts 22:25)
However, basically following the "edit
of Toleration" (AD 313) and the declaration of Theodosius I (AD
380) which made Nicene Christianity the State church, the latter
progressively took upon aspects of the State, including reliance on
the arm of the flesh to fight its spiritual battles. And which was
one of the many things Protestantism (which also has its faults, but
see evangelicals vs. Catholics here)
had to unlearn from Catholicism, as we are not be to conformed to
this world, but surrender our bodies to God and be renewed in our
mind according to the Scriptures, so we will use our bodes according.
In contrast, below is some of the documentation of the use of the
sword of men by Rome.
Torture
• Pope
Innocent III,
Cum ex Officii Nostri of 1207: In order altogether to remove the
patrimony of St. Peter from heretics, we decree as a perpetual law,
that whatsoever heretic, especially if he be a Patarene, shall be
found therein, shall immediately be taken and delivered to the
secular court to be punished according to the law. All his goods also
shall be sold, so that he who took him shall receive one part;
another shall go the court which convicted him, and the third shall
be applied to the building of prisons in the country wherein he was
taken. The house, however, in which a heretic has been received shall
be altogether destroyed, nor shall anyone presume to rebuild it; but
let that which was a den of iniquity become a receptacle of filth.
Moreover, their believers and defenders shall be fined one fourth
part of their goods, which shall be applied to the service of the
public. — Cum ex Officii Nostri Pope Innocent III, 1207,
Inquisition, by Edward Peters, p. 49, review Living Tradition,
Organ of the Roman Theological Forum
- • Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:• Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda,1252:Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate [some translatons read "expel"] in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)
- (25) Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly,or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons.{7}
(26) The head of state or
ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} provided
he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as
actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments
of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other
heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those
whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended
them,as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse
their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed.
- (29) The head of state or
ruler must cause the names of all men rendered infamous by heresy,
or under a statute of outlawry for it, to be written in a consistent
form and manner in four books, of which one shall go to the state or
local government, another to the Diocesan bishop, the third to the
Dominican friars, and the fourth to the Franciscans, and the names
of these persons are to be read aloud three times a year in a solemn
public ceremony.
- (30) The head of state or ruler must carefully investigate the sons and grandsons of heretics and those who have lodged them, defended them, and given them aid, and in the future admit them to no public affairs or public office.
- (31) The head of state or ruler must send one of his aides, chosen by the Diocesan if there is one,with the aforesaid inquisitors obtained from the Apostolic See, as often as they shall wish, into the jurisdiction of the state and the district. This aide,as the aforesaid inquisitors shall have determined, will compel three men or more, reliable witnesses,or, if it seem good to them, the whole neighborhood, to testify to the aforesaid inquisitors if they have detected any heretics, or want to expose their motives,{9} whether the heretics celebrate rites in secret gatherings, or scoff at the common life of the faithful, and their customs; or if the witnesses want to expose those the heretics have seduced, or their defenders, or those who lodge them, or those who give the heretics help. The head of state shall proceed against the accused according to the laws of the Emperor Frederick when he governed Padua.
- (32) The head of state or ruler must, within ten days after the accusation, complete the following tasks: the destruction of the houses, the imposition of the fines, the consigning and dividing-up of the valuables that have been found or seized, all of which have already been described in this decree. He must obtain all fines in coin within three months, and divide them up in the manner to be set forth hereafter, and convict of crime those who cannot pay, and hold them in prison until they can. However, he shall be subject to investigation for all and each of these things, as it shall be described hereunder, and moreover he must designate one of the assistants, chosen by the Diocesan bishop or his surrogate and the aforesaid inquisitors, to carefully complete all these tasks; another assistant shall be substituted if they so decide.
- (33) None of these sentences or punishments imposed on account of heresy, shall,either by the motion of any public gathering, the advice of counselors, or any kind of popular outcry,or the innate humanity {10}of those in authority,be in any way waived or pardoned.
(34)The head of state or
ruler must divide up all the property of the heretics that is seized
or discovered by the aforesaid officials, and the fines exacted from
these heretics, in the form and manner following: one-third shall go
to the government of the state or district. The second as a reward of
the industry of the office shall go to the officials who handled this
particular case. The third shall be deposited in some secure place to
be kept by the aforesaid Diocesan bishop and inquisitors,and spent as
they shall think fit to promote the faith and extirpate{11} heretics,
this policy prevailing in spite of any statute that has been or shall
be enacted against this dividing-up of the heretics' property.
- • Pope Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559: Thus We will and decree that the aforementioned sentences, censures and penalties be incurred without exception by all members of the following categories:
- (i) Anysoever who, before this date, shall have been detected to have deviated from the Catholic Faith, or fallen into any heresy, or incurred schism, or provoked or committed either or both of these, or who have confessed to have done any of these things, or who have been convicted of having done any of these things.
- (ii) Anysoever who (which may God, in His clemency and goodness to all, deign to avert) shall in the future so deviate or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or shall provoke or commit either or both of these.
- (iii) Anysoever who shall be detected to have so deviated, fallen, incurred, provoked or committed, or who shall confess to have done any of these things, or who shall be convicted of having done any of these things....
- 5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:] as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted:
- (i) they shall automatically incur sentence of excommunication;
- (ii) they shall be rendered infamous;
- (iii) they shall be excluded on pain of invalidity from any public or private office, deliberation, Synod, general or provincial Council and any conclave of Cardinals or other congregation of the faithful, and from any election or function of witness, so that they cannot take part in any of these by vote, in person, by writings, representative or by any agent;
- (iv) they shall be incapable of making a will;
- (v) they shall not accede to the succession of heredity;
- (vi) no one shall be forced to respond to them concerning any business;
- (vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgements shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing;
- (viii) if they shall have been Advocates, their pleading shall nowise be received;
- (ix) if they shall have been Notaries, documents drafted by them shall be entirely without strength or weight;..
- (xii) finally, all Kingdoms, Duchies, Dominions, Fiefs and goods of this kind shall be confiscated, made public and shall remain so, and shall be made the rightful property of those who shall first occupy them if these shall be sincere in faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church and under obedience to Us and to Our successors the Roman Pontiffs canonically entering office. [Note: This Constitution was reinforced in his Papal Bull Inter multiplices [December 21, 1566] by Pope St. Pius V Note: Those words in brackets signify the Latin significance of the full authority of this Constitution above.]
• Pope Leo X, Exsurge
Domine: [Error condemned] “That heretics be burned is against the
will of the Spirit.” [consider infallible by some], —
Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
• Pope Pius
IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): "[It is error to believe that] The
(Catholic) Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any
temporal power, direct or indirect." Section
V, Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights, #24.
"[It is error to believe that] In
the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers (Church and
civil), the civil law prevails." Section VI,
Errors About Civil Society, Considered Both in Itself and in its
Relation to the Church, # 42
The Church has the right,
as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for
attaining its end,...has, therefore, the right to admonish or
warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to
its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that
is, coercive jurisdiction...
...with the formal recognition of the
Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties
proportioned to the increase of ecclesiastical offences, came an
appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the
said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted.... —
Catholic Encyclopedia
Jurisdiction
Torture
- • Pope Gregory I. denounced as worthless a confession extorted by incarceration and hunger.369369 Epist. VIII. 30. But at a later period, in dealing with heretics, the Roman church unfortunately gave the sanction of her highest authority to the use of the torture, and thus betrayed her noblest instincts and holiest mission. The fourth Lateran Council (1215) inspired the horrible crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and the establishment of the infamous ecclesiastico-political courts of Inquisition. These courts found the torture the most effective means of punishing and exterminating heresy, and invented new forms of refined cruelty worse than those of the persecutors of heathen Rome.
• Pope
Innocent
IV,
in his instruction for the guidance of the Inquisition in Tuscany and
Lombardy, ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics
by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all
their accomplices (1252).371371...
This
was an ominous precedent, which did more harm to the reputation of
the papacy than the extermination of any number of heretics could
possibly do it good. Phillip
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval
Christianity. A.D. 590-1073.The Torture
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.vi.viii.html
- • Pope Catholicism has now been explicitly and emphatically the Roman state religion since the imperial edict of February 28, 380,6 but the laws remain to a great extent in fundamental continuity with the old pagan legislation – including its reliance on interrogatory torture (quaestio) as a standard part of judicial practice for serious crimes. It was even prescribed, under certain circumstances, for witnesses, not just those accused of a crime.7 Infliction of severe bodily pain is also included in the Code as punishment for those duly convicted of crime. We read, for instance, that corrupt public officials are to suffer "the punishment of flogging and torture".8 As for those guilty of crime against the Emperor in person (lèse-majesté), "tortures shall tear them to pieces".9 All in all, the Theodosian Code provides for torture, either as quaestio or as punishment for convicted criminals, in no less than 40 legally specified situations.10 However the higher clergy are exempt: bishops and priests (but not "clerics of a lower grade") "shall be able to give their testimony without the outrage of torture, that is, without corporal punishment"11
- • Pope The treatment of heretics and schismatics in this original Christian respublica was severe, but milder than in subsequent mediaeval times. They were not put to death, but were reduced to poverty by the confiscation of their property, and were subject to legal disabilities (incapable of making testaments)...
- • Pope St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century)..without mentioning the word, he does justify the contemporary Inquisition’s use of torture (recently introduced in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV... in considering whether unbelievers may be "compelled" to the faith, he first acknowledges that those who have never been Christians (i.e., Jews, pagans and Muslims) may not be forced to embrace the faith, but then continues: "On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received".22
- • Pope St. Alphonsus Liguori (18th century)... Whether one who has already been tortured may be tortured again (#204)? Answer: not if he refuses to confess during the first torture session (unless new independent evidence against him subsequently comes to light). In that case he must be set free. But if he confesses under torture, and then retracts that confession before the judge, he may be tortured again – and even a third time if the same thing happens after the second torture session. But if he confesses under torture a third time, and yet again subsequently retracts in the presence of the judge, he must be released. For the judge then must presume that his three confessions were all forced and involuntary – and therefore invalid. - http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
• Paul
Johnson, English Roman Catholic researcher and author:
Ever since the eleventh century, secular rulers had been burning those who obstinately refused to fit in with established Christian arrangements; the Church had opposed capital punishment, successive councils decreeing confiscation of property, excommunication, imprisonment or whipping, branding and exile. But in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself.
Ever since the eleventh century, secular rulers had been burning those who obstinately refused to fit in with established Christian arrangements; the Church had opposed capital punishment, successive councils decreeing confiscation of property, excommunication, imprisonment or whipping, branding and exile. But in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself.
The codification of legislation
against heresy took place over half a century, roughly 1180-1230,
when it culminated in the creation of a permanent tribunal, staffed
by Dominican friars, who worked from a fixed base in conjunction with
the episcopate, and were endowed with generous authority. The
permanent system was designed as a reform; in fact it incorporated
all the abuses of earlier practice and added new ones. It had a
certain vicious logic. Since a heretic was denied burial in
consecrated ground, the corpses of those posthumously convicted (a
very frequent occurrence) had to be disinterred, dragged through the
streets and burnt on the refuse pit. The houses in which they lived
had to be knocked down and turned into sewers or rubbish-dumps.
Convictions of thought-crimes being
difficult to secure, the Inquisition used procedures banned in other
courts, and so contravened town charters, written and customary laws,
and virtually every aspect of established jurisprudence. The names of
hostile witnesses were withheld, anonymous informers were used, the
accusations of personal enemies were allowed, the accused were denied
the right of defence, or of defending counsel; and there was no
appeal. The object, quite simply, was to produce convictions at any
cost; only thus, it was thought, could heresy be quenched. Hence
depositors were not named; all a suspect could do was to produce a
list of his enemies, and he was allowed to bring forward witnesses to
testify that such enemies existed, but for no other purpose. On the
other hand, the prosecution could use the evidence of criminals,
heretics, children and accomplices, usually forbidden in other
courts.
Once an area became infected by
heresy, and the system moved in, large numbers of people became
entangled in its toils. Children of heretics could not inherit, as
the stain was vicarial; grandchildren could not hold ecclesiastical
benefices unless they successfully denounced someone. Everyone from
the age of fourteen (girls from twelve) were required to take public
oaths every two years to remain good Catholics and denounce heretics.
Failure to confess or receive communion at least three times a year
aroused automatic suspicion; possession of the scriptures in any
language, or of breviaries, hour-books and psalters in the
vernacular, was forbidden. Torture was not employed regularly until
near the end of the thirteenth century (except by secular officials
without reference to the Inquisition) but suspects could be held in
prison and summoned again and again until they yielded, the object of
the operation being to obtain admissions or denunciations. When
torture was adopted it was subjected to canonical restraints - if it
produced nothing on the first occasion it was forbidden to repeat it.
But such regulations were open to glosses; Francis Pegna, the leading
Inquisition commentator, wrote:
'But if, having been tortured
reasonably (decenter), he will not confess the truth, set other sorts
of torments before him, saying that he must pass through all these
unless he will confess the truth. If even this fails, a second or
third day may be appointed to him, either in terrorem or even in
truth, for the continuation (not repetition) of torture; for tortures
may not be repeated unless fresh evidence emerges against him; then,
indeed, they may, for against continuation there is no prohibition.'
Pegna said that pregnant women might
not be tortured, for fear of abortions: 'we must wait until she is
delivered of her child'; and children below the age of puberty, and
old folk, were to be less severely tortured. The methods used were,
on the whole, less horrific than those employed by various secular
governments - though it should be added that English common lawyers,
for instance, flatly denied that torture was legal, except in case of
refusal to plead.
Once a victim was accused, escape from
some kind of punishment was virtually impossible: the system would
not allow it. But comparatively few were executed: less than ten per
cent of those liable. Life-imprisonment was usual for those
'converted' by fear of death; this could be shortened by
denunciations. Acts of sympathy or favour for heretics were punished
by imprisonment or pilgrimage; there were also fines or floggings,
and penance in some form was required of all those who came into
contact with the infected, even though unknowingly and innocently.
The smallest punishment was to wear yellow cloth crosses - an
unpopular penalty since it prevented a man from getting employment;
on the other hand, to cease to wear it was treated as a relapse into
heresy. A spell in prison was virtually inevitable.
Of course there was a shortage of
prison-space, since solitary confinement was the rule. Once the
Inquisition moved into an area, the bishop's prison was soon full;
then the king's; then old buildings had to be converted, or new ones
built. Food was the prisoner's own responsibility, though the bishop
was supposed to provide bread and water in the case of poverty. The
secular authorities did not like these crowded prisons, being
terrified of gaol fever and plague, and thus burned many more people
than the Church authorized. The system was saved from utter horror
only by the usual medieval frailties: corruption, inertia, and sheer
administrative incompetence...
In
the Middle Ages, the ruthless and confident exercise of authority
could nearly always swing a majority behind it. And the victims of
the flames usually died screaming in pain and terror, thus appearing
to confirm the justice of the proceedings. — Paul
Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, pgs. 253-255.
• Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.
- The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]
- that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
- that it was used only once
- that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.
- The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).[1]
- The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.[3] The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty. The relevant portion of the bull read: "When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them."[4]
- Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) — https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Ad_extirpanda; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda
- • Pope The Catholic Encyclopedia > I > Inquisition further affirms and explains: [torture] was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum — i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs...
- • Pope Had this papal legislation been adhered to in practice, the historian of the Inquisition would have fewer difficulties to satisfy. In the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity. Urban IV on 2 August, 1262, renewed the permission, and this was soon interpreted as formal licence to continue the examination in the torture chamber itself. The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage. The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented — first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis), as defended by Eymeric; "quia, iterari non debent [tormenta], nisi novis supervenitibus indiciis, continuari non prohibentur." - https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
- • Pope The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end,...has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also,if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction... ...with the formal recognition of the Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties proportioned to the increase of ecclesiastical offences, came an appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted. . — Catholic Encyclopedia *Jurisdiction*
▀ Modernist change:- • Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech of 6 September 2007.."In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture 'cannot be contravened under any circumstances'". — TORTURE AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS A PROBLEM IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, September 2005: Living Tradition ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM, Editor: Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., Living Tradition, Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157, USA
- Translation of Ad extirpanda http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~draker/history/Ad_Extirpanda.html
- • Pope John Paul II, Address to the International Red Cross (Geneva, June 15, 1982)... And as for torture, the Christian is confronted from infancy onward with the account of Christ’s Passion. The memory of Jesus – stripped, flogged, and derided right up until the sufferings of his final agony – should always make him resolve never to see analogous torments inflicted on any one of his brothers in humanity. Spontaneously, the disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim. . . .
- • Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), on "Respect for bodily integrity".
- #2298. In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture.
• Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Veritatis Splendor (August 6, 1993). #80. Now, reason testifies that there are some human acts which are seen to be "non-ordainable" to God, since they are radically incompatible with the good of the person (omnino dissident a bono personae) created in His image. These are acts which in the Church’s moral tradition are called "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum)... — TORTURE AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AS A PROBLEM IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, September 2005: Living Tradition ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM, Editor: Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D., Living Tradition, Oblates of Wisdom, P.O. Box 13230, St. Louis, MO 63157, USA
The Scriptures do indeed sanction its regulated forms of slavery, but which were not part of the fundamental moral laws ordained by God from the beginning, which are based upon creational distinctions as reflective of the Divine order, but instead are part of the civil laws and which regulated a existing institution which God did not initiate.
And regardless of Mormonic or other racist doctrine, God did not make the black man a perpetual servant to the white man (and strangers could own Hebrews servants for up to 6 years).
The basis for slavery being different than that of male headship, thus Paul continues to only clearly affirm the latter, but while he instructs on how slaves are to be treated, yet he clearly requires a slave owner to receive his escaped and converted slave back as a brother, no longer a slave, (Philemon 1:15-17) and in general recommends that they obtain freedom if lawfully able. (1Cor. 7:1)
And which would later be made possible, while slave revolts under Rome only made things worse (and the Christian emphasis is on having a superior spirit in all circumstances, rather than focusing on proactively promoting political change [cf. 2Cor. 10:3-6]).
By equating male headship with racism and slavery is as if Genesis taught:
"And the Lord God formed the white [or Hebrew] man of the dust of the ground. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the white man should be alone; I will make him an helper for him. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a black man, and brought him unto the white man.
"And the white man said, The black man whom thou gavest to me, he gave me of the tree, and I did eat. " (Genesis 3:12)
"Unto the black man God said, I will greatly multiply thy labor and thy servitude, in the sweat of thy face shalt thou provide bread, and thy desire shall be against thy master, and he shall rule over thee."
And is seeking to negate the fundamental basis for male headship, the egalitarian exegetes have New Covenant teaching saying,
"But I would have you know, that the source of every man is Christ; and the source of the women is the man; and the source of Christ is God. For this cause ought the woman to have no sign of submission on her head*, because of the angels who also are not ruled over by God."
"But I allow a woman to teach, and to reject any claims to male headship, as they are to be quiet. For Adam was not first formed and then Eve. Nor was Adam first deceived, but the man and the woman were deceived as equal partners." (1 Timothy 2:12-14)
In the light of zero examples of female priests, apostles or pastors (despite egalitarian extrapolations), and women only being as a head in a rare exceptional circumstance, in contrast to explicit statements that women are not to occupy the (magisterial) office of teacher in the church, and that the wife is to be subject to her husband as the church is to Christ, based on creational distinctions, then the very attempts to negate the headship of the male are an argument against the feminist egalitarianism.
*Note that kephalē, the word for "head" in 1Cor. 11:3, etc., in the less than 20 times out of 76 that the word for "head" is used outside the literal sense, and outside such metaphorical uses such as Christ being the foundational head stone of the building, then it denotes far more than simply "source," but authority, so that 1Cor. 11:3 is corespondent to, "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Ephesians 5:24).
With due respect it seems as if you only read the first sentence, as my response certainly did address the premise that these argument for male headship are the same as for slavery.
And rather than my post consisting of an attacking on your or anyone else's character, motives or person, outside of my relegating the egalitarian argument as sophistry - which i see defined (Free dictionary) as
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument,
and its use by me was in regards to the argument itself, and did not necessarily impugn the motive - then the rest of my post was a reasoned argument against the egalitarian polemic.
Nor was i tell you to disallow dissenting prohomosexual posts, but showing how the same reasoning is used to wrongly justify both.
And thank you for allowing me to express my conclusions.
Paul teaches about the two back-to-back both in Eph. 5 and Col. 3
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. " (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; " (Ephesians 6:5)
The commonality is that submission is enjoined upon both, but the key distinction is that the basis is different and therefore its transcendence. The headship of the male is based upon creational distinctions reflective of that within the Godhead. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. " (1 Timothy 2:13) “and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1Cor. 11:3)
And in which creation the wife typifies the church, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. " (Ephesians 5:31-32)
In contrast, while submission is required of both, the station of a servant is not based on any creational order or intrinsic distinctions, but is a matter of circumstance in the NT. And which station can change, with freedom for to servants being recommended or even enjoined, while male headship is further affirmed under the New Covenant, with no liberty from that being offered, despite the attempts to assert otherwise.
What my post says is, "these arguments that used to be used to support slavery are no longer considered valid. These same types of arguments are now being used to support male headship, so those arguments ought to be re-examined."
While you may have engaged in this simply as an examination of polemical similarities, it seemed to me to be an attempt to impugn the doctrine of male headship by using certain arguments for slavery by some Christians and making them analogous to those for male headship, yet there are problems with the former argument which the latter do not have, as well as the critical distinctions between the two cases, some of which i thus dealt with.
And thus noted evangelicals such as Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley were among and many other Christian abolitionists who were in opposition to slavery while upholding male headship, while less doctrinal minded types such as the Quakers were part of a a minority that deviated from the traditional doctrine.
Further, the word "sophistry" does have the connotations I mentioned, and "deliberately deceitful" is in fact part of the understood meaning of that word..."Fallacious argument" would have suited your stated meaning better,
The “understood meaning” of sophistry as denoting willful deception is an interpretation, while apart from motive i see it as meaning deceptive, as explained.
Finally, with regards to your point on "homosexual arguments" - what bothers me is that you seem to be using this as a reason to weaken my argument through guilt-by-association.
It is, as they both invoke the same fallacious argumentation, though they push it to a further extreme, both in this case as well as many others.
To be ctnd.
Also, your speculative rewriting of Gen. 2-3 in an attempt to show that the basis for slavery and the basis for male headship are different, actually proves how much the two arguments are the same.
Just the opposite. My post actually contrasts the two arguments by illustrating the type of statements and foundational support slavery would need if it were to be have the same basis and immutability as male headship.
As it does not, what you can argue is that there are similarities between some attempts to justify at least racial slavery, or similarities as regards certain aspects as submission, but which ignore the critical foundational distinctions between the two.
There are also similarities between the gospel of the Lord Jesus and the story of Mithras, but which does not make them the same due to distinctions and other aspects , nor make the former to be the one doing the copying.
Thus the real issue becomes the viability of the arguments for racial slavery insofar as they compare with those for male headship.
The 1850s argument claimed that blacks were intended by God to be subordinate to whites from the beginning of the time there were races. Your argument claims that women were intended by God to be subordinate to men from the beginning of the time there were sexes. The 1850's argument claims that all black people inherited subordination due to the sin of their ancestor. Your argument claims that all women inherited subordination to the sin of their ancestor.
I will give a brief response to these first and then respond more fully.
The differences is that the former cannot be established while the latter is and the contrast it clear. Unlike the women, in creation God nowhere said He made a black man from a white man to be his helper, and that whitey would would rule over the black man, and confirm in the NT by making the women to be as the church, with submission being likened to that of Christ to the Father.
The racial slavery argument is based on their curse on Canaan is at best speculative, and is not confirmed in the rest of Scripture, with leadership being restricted based on skin color, whereas male headship in marriage and the church explicitly is. And the attempts to negate the latter, which i have dealt with by God's grace, overall require such fallacious argumentation that they effectively are an argument against them.
The 1850s argument allows no change to the subordination of black people even though Jesus has brought and is bringing the New Creation. Your argument allows no change to the subordination of women even though Jesus has brought and is bringing the new creation.
Again, even if the argument for racial superiority and slavery from Gn. 9:25 were sound, the NT nowhere makes race a factor in leadership, as if the head of the black man was the white man and that blacks are not to usurp the authority of the white man, while explicitly stating this as regards the husband over the wife.
Moreover, the premise that the principle behind such texts as Gal. 3:28, that of essential equality, negates male headship would also negate any order of leadership within the Godhead and in the church, but which it manifestly cannot not.
To be ctnd.
These arguments illustrate why this exercise in analogy is deceptive, because the arguments for racial slavery rests upon assertions which are nowhere established, unlike those for male headship. Again, you simply will not find God creating the black man out of the white Adam for a helper he is to rule over, and the NT confirming the white man as the head of the black with the latter being a type of the church, as well as spiritual leadership being restricted to the white man.
In addition, it cannot be established that Adam and Noah were white, and that Canaan somehow distinctively became the progenitor of the blacks of Africa, and that his posterity were forever cursed as slaves for Japheth and Shem, and that this is confirmed under the New Covenant.
The first mention of anyone having servants was Abraham, (Gn. 14:14) and neither there or anywhere else does skin color determine slavery. While an argument may be made, based upon the Table of Nations, that the descendants of Canaan populated part of Africa, that is speculative and not transcendent in any case.
What Scripture does do is place the boundaries of Canaan in close proximity to Israel, (Gn. 10:19) and it is more accepted that they populated a large portion of what is now in the Middle East , occupying the Levant , a restriction that was emphasized by 18th century abolitionist theologians.
Also, as Canaan was the name of the “Promised Land,” thus Shem fought his own relatives for it. Yet the Canaanites in the promised land were to be killed (not subjected) and which was for moral reasons, not race. In contrast, cities in areas very far off from them who were objects of conquest, and chose not to fight, were made tributaries. (Dt. 20:10-18)
And it was from the heathen that were round about Israel, and children of the strangers that sojourned among them, that they were allowed to buy bondmen and bondmaids from, although the latter could own Hebrews servants for a time. (Lv. 25:44-47)
Meanwhile, as genetic science has that humans originating in Africa near present day Ethiopia, thus some argue that Adam was black.
I would also add that, as one who has had 2nd degree burns on both my legs due to being out in the sun for about 6 hours (forsaking the law of my mother!), besides other episodes, i do not think dark skin is inferior to white, and it is the latter which i think could seem to be like a curse in most of Africa.
Furthermore, and critically, the NT also says nothing about blacks being fated to slavery, or slaves being so due to any aspect of creation and distinction between races, with only commonality with women being that they were both called to submission within an established order. And likewise Christians are enjoined to (conditionally) submit to spiritual and civil rulers as an order ordained by God. (Heb. 13:17; Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pt. 2:14) Besides the specific authority structure, Christians are to serve one another, but which does not place all on the same level of functional authority.
In addition, not only was a race not forbidden to be in leadership, but as said, slaves were encouraged to obtain freedom, (1Cor. 7:21) and abolishment of slave status was actually required in one case. (Philemon 1:10-21)
To be ctnd.
In contrast, the submission of the wife to her husband has a unique and transcendent basis, beginning with the women coming from the man as a helper, and ruling over her, and the priesthood and (later) apostleship consisting only of males (despite some eisegetical egalitarian extrapolation arguing otherwise), and explicit NT teaching that affirms the headship of the male in both marriage and the church, based on creation, the fall, and reflective of the order within the Godhead.
Therefore the weakness of arguments of racial slavery and the strength of the evidence against it is something egalitarians can only wish was the case in regards to male headship, while the distinctions between them negate the attempt to equate the two as both being conditional and abrogated.
• Sorry, PBJ, but what this really boils down to is that you agree with a certain interpretation of the scriptures that supports male headship, but you disagree with with another interpretation of the scriptures that supports African slavery. You believe you have more support for your position than they did for theirs, but your continual use of the word "explicit" is really identical to another of the pro-slavery 1850s arguments: that your position is "clear" in the scriptures while your opponents are "twisting scripture" or committing "eisegesis."
Of course what it boils down to is the warrant for each polemic, and thus i worked to substantiate that the arguments for slavery that are used in attempting to negate those for male headship fail.
• But there is no such thing as an unbiased human being, and there is no reading of the Bible that is not an interpretation.
Well of course it is an interpretation, but the “that's your interpretation” response can be used for anything, including that there is no coherent moral ethic in Scripture, and which allows one to justify anything, and which modern revisionist hermeneutics lead to.
However, truth is exclusive by nature and in Scripture is manifest, and thus the Lord made absolute and divisive statements, as did the apostles, and persuaded souls based on Scriptural substantiation and exegesis. And which the modern feminist polemics are demonstrably contrary to, such as by reducing God to being the “source” of Christ, rather than His head, and thus Christ simply being the source of the church, and not its head, so that it can dispense with the male as the head of the wife, and physically signifying that.
• I don't think yours holds up any more than you think the slavery ones hold up.
Of course you do not, but which does not make your judgment valid, while the nature of debate is to present evidence and let the others judge, and thus i do, seeking to present what is most consistent and clear in Scripture on this issue.
• However, I can see that you have dedicated a lot of time to creating your own websites on this issue which are intended to negate the functional equality of women and relegate them to being under male authority.
That is not an objective statement as i really have only one web site with a couple mirrors, and one page, with a couple sub pages out of about 300 that was created specifically to address this issue. I have blogs but which do not yet specifically address male headship.
• . But I would like you to think about this: If the position that you take, however "biblically correct" it seems, is inherently against "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," then how can you be so sure you're interpreting correctly?
Your challenge assumes what needs to be established. Atheists also invokes “do unto others” as their moral guide, and as illustrated by the use of “do unto others” argument by those who want to negate any authority and advocate “free love,” it must be recognized that this principle presupposes a moral code from God that establishes what you should want to be done unto others as done to you.
Left to himself, man can easily justify consensual fornication based on “do unto others,” but the first commandment, is to love God supremely. And among other things, this enjoins obedience according to our station in life, including based on age and creational order and the Fall and after the order in the Godhead and the church to Christ.
In the end, upholding positional/functional distinctions is no more against “do unto others” now than it was in the past, or against such things as requiring obedience to parents by teenagers (who think they know what is best and rebel against parents being uniquely endowed with authority over them), versus parent being in submission to them.
I understand your protest and authority, however, my 13 responses were to 8 posts attacking my position, which included links by you to more, and it is not unreasonable for me to present reasoned replies to each to the multiple arguments they made, which i quote, all of which makes for some length.
• Nor is this blog set up, or intended to be, a "debate" blog. I allow civil discourse, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to be put on trial.
Well, I would say it is not reasonable to have a blog on an issue which opposing views are attacked, but which ends up allowing one side to be present 8 posts while disallowing reasoned Scriptural responses them.
• You have your own blogs where you can present your views of scripture in detail.
I do have one, and if you would rather not post my responses then i may post them there if that is OK.
• ...Most of your 13 comments are elaborations on this theme. Frankly, as I read through them, they became quite repetitive.
The arguments against my position were from 4 different posters in 8 posts and somewhat repetitive or covering more than one aspect, and included speculating of me, “it seems he prefers to take text out of context in order to try to reach his conclusions,” and overall longer responses were needed.
• One of them also broke my rule against speculating about my motivations, by intimating that the reason I believe as I do is that I have been abused by men.
That was an honest speculation which was general, “i wonder if some of the reactions here...”, and i was not conscious at the time that i was violating your rule against attacking motive, which this seems to fit under. Sorry.
• In short, and as I have told other men who came here to try to set me straight-- I am not permitting you to teach and assume authority on my blog.
My real motive is truth based on sound exegesis, but I do not think responding to a polemic against something in a combox on a blog which you control is assuming authority on your blog, while some level of teaching is inevitable in responding to issues.
• Finally, contrary to your strange equation of my position on "do unto others" with that of atheism, I do presuppose a moral code from God that establishes what you should want to do unto others. And setting yourself over them in a chain of command is, not, despite what you claim, part of what you should do unto others. "Thus do the rulers of the Gentiles," Jesus said, "but it shall not be so among you."
If a chain of command is contrary "do unto others" then God would be contradicting Himself, as He did just that, and requires (conditional) obedience to authority. (Rm. 13:1-7; 2Thes. 3:14)
And the Lord here is obviously not rejecting authority, as He exercised it Himself and gave it to the church. (Mt. 18:17; cf. 1Cor. 5:13; 6:4) Note also my comments on “red letter” exegesis, as only relying on the gospels is not a valid hermeneutic. And thus obedience to elders is enjoined. (Heb. 13:17; cf. Acts 20:28; 2Thes. 3:14) But what the Lord is teaching is what manner leadership is to be: "And whosoever will be chief [not that none may be] among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. " (Matthew 20:27-28)
• I will give you one opportunity to answer this, and comments will then be closed on this post.
The begins the missing section:
To believer333:
• I see by your website that your method of interpretation is to quote a verse and then interpret that verse in whatever seems obvious by those words in only that verse...Because you apparently have done this all your Christian life, you now have a backlog of assumptions made by this method.
Then what you “see” is not reality, but instead you posit a premise without proof. Simply because a specific text is referenced does not mean the context have not been considered.
Instead, in contrast to the misconstruance often shown by egalitarians in their eisegesis, which includesarguing based on a “red letter” hermeneutic, i endeavor to compare Scripture with Scripture, and which consistently upholds male headship as i described it, from Genesis onward.
• Correct exegesis of Scripture ignores the verse numbers and looks for the beginning of the subject being discussed and the ending.
As for the rest of your exegetical aspects, I affirm giving what these considerations warrant, and consideration of these aspects are what you will find in conservative guides on exegesis as well as “liberal” ones, and the issue is whether such valid considerations as cultural climate and authorial intent or linguistics are understood as warranted, or whether they are abused in order to affirm a desired conclusion. The latter is abundantly manifest by modern day revisionists in departing from historical truths, and includes everything from relegating OT miracles and historical accounts to being fables, to making God the Father to be a women or merely to be the source or Christ, and likewise Christ for the church, as distinct being from the head of it.
Or such considerations are invoked in muddying their waters so that the command to live by every word of God is practically impossible. Some prohomosexual authors invoke such considerations in arguing that Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate, and even that nothing is intrinsically immoral, disallowing that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality for today, and basically contending we can do what seems right based upon our judgment. (contra Dt. 12:8)
• PBJ, until you learn how to do this...
I understand these principles, and how they can be abused, and find the assertion your side is rightly using them, and all the opposing position is not, to be spurious. And that instead, with the totality of Scripture considered, and in the light of how Scripture interpret itself, I find and show that the Scriptures uphold male headship, as explained, from beginning to end.
To Kristen:
• I'll give PBJ one last chance to respond (which I would have done anyway, since I had the last word)
You already gave me a last opportunity and which I did make use of, and this is another one, thank you.