Religion:
Rick re "The Pope and Capital Punishment"

You seem to misunderstand a few things about, say, the Catholic Church. First, the Pope is not condemning capital punishment as an infallible moral teaching of the Church - his argument is that capital punishment is so badly administered that it is currently unjust. This is not the first time that the church has spoken against capital punishment - the earliest example I can think of off the top of my head was the regional council of Spain in 1435 where the bishops opposed capital punishment in France as unjust and they were supported by the then-current pope.

Also, the Spanish Inquisition was a civil action that used the local church as investigators. The Inquisition was called by the Spansh government and all punishments were conducted by the Spanish government. The clergy involved were what modern people would call 'expert investigators'. And the Inquisition was, believe it or not, less harsh than American justice.

Finally, the spiritual authority of the office of Pontiff is not based upon the individual actions of the merely-human popes who fill the seat. To claim that the failings of past popes negates the spiritual authority of the office of pope is akin to claiming that the crimes of Nixon make all subsequent presidents powerless, or that because Spiro Agnew was a felon there should be no more Vice-Presidents. Perfection in the men inside the Catholic hierarchy is not only unreasonable, it is not required by the Church itself. That is why it is a hierarchy - it has checks and balances to ensure that the overall goal - spiritual and moral guidance - is achieved.

[I asked Rick to expand on the above, and he wrote the following. —JoT]

First, there are 4 types of pronouncements by the pope.

1) Personal, like "I don't like Brussels sprouts" - just the stuff we all say and do and it carries no spiritual weight.

2) statements as a member of the magisterium, like "the encroachment of Marxist thought into liberation theology should be seen as a possible threat" - this is stated as a professional theologian and priest and, like all such things coming from a professional theologian, etc., be seriously considered by Catholics; BUT, it is up to individuals to decide whether they agree with him or not because he is speaking as an expert, no more (or less).

3) Disciplines handed down as the head of the church, like "celibacy is a requirement for admission into the priestly orders" - these are things that he can require as head of the hierarchy. Catholics are not required to agree with them, but they are required to obey them unless they disagree on moral grounds after serious reflection.

Finally, 4) Dogmatic statements, like "The faithful must believe that Jesus was the Messiah, fully human and fully divine" - this defines what you must or must not do /say to be a Catholic. This carries the full, infallible weight of the office of pope. If you disagree with these statements, you are separating yourself from the Church and are in danger of becoming a heretic.

So, when the pope says that Catholics should oppose the death penalty as it is currently administered, he is speaking as an expert. When he forbids the religious (priests, monks, nuns, etc.) from publicly supporting capital punishment, he is speaking as head of the hierarchy. But he has not issued a dogmatic statement (and almost certainly will not - Catholic theology supports the possibility of capital punishment as long as it is just).

Past support or opposition to capital punishment is along much the same lines and is something that is acknowledged to change and grow over time; it is not a dogmatic element of the Church. Past popes have made similar declarations that charging interest on loans was to be opposed because of the situation of the world at the time the statement was issued. When it was later changed, it had no impact upon the spiritual authority or integrity of the office because there was no claim of infallibility.

If this sounds complex, you must remember two things - this is part of an attempt to deal with life, which is very complex and it is much less complicated that the civil law system!

As far as the Inquisition, you may be surprised at how much of what you think you know is actually wrong. For example, during the roughly 250 years of the Spanish Inquisition no more than 5,000 people were handed over to the Spanish government for execution. While that may sound high, that is a much lower number than the total executions in the United States in 200 years. Also, while torture was permitted during the first 100 or so years, it must be remembered that torture was the standard method of interrogation at the time. In comparison with the use of the rack, whips, and hot irons (the standard in France, Spain, Italy, England, and most other places at the time), the Inquisition was forbidden to draw blood, leave a bruise, or otherwise leave a mark on the prisoner. Torture was limited to no more than 15 minutes at a time and no more than three times in the life a particular person. While this churns our stomachs, it was amazingly different than the rest of the world.

Also, the "third degree", or use of sleep deprivation, beatings, and even electric shocks, was common with American police as late as the 1960's - the Inquisition was gentle compared to the Chicago police of the Depression. Also, people determined to be mentally incompetent through madness or retardation were exempt from both torture and punishment - a bit better than some places in current America.

Another point, any confessions made during torture had to be confirmed a day or two later by a different examiner - if the person denied their confession, it was destroyed.

Lastly, the vast majority of those sentenced to death could avoid execution by simply renouncing their crimes and swearing to return to the faith. While in some cases this led to confinement (usually in a secure monastery, not a prison) or a fine (administered by the Spanish government for them, not the Inquisition - who set the fine), often the person was free to go as long as they understood that a second conviction for the same crime meant the execution would be carried out.

Other myths - No, the Inquisition had no authority to arrest or try Jews or Muslims. Only self-proclaimed Christians were subject to the Inquisition.

The Spanish Inquisition never tried anyone for witchcraft. In a famous letter in 1507, the grand Inquisitor announced that all accusations of witchcraft, sorcery, hexes, etc. were spiritual matters and, thus, under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The letter goes on to announce that belief in witchcraft, etc., is rank superstition and contrary to Church teachings. This effectively made the accusation of or prosecution for witchcraft impossible. During the witchcraft hysteria that swept many Protestant nations, Catholic nations in general and Spain in particular had no such outbreaks of madness.

This is only a gloss on the Inquisition with no attention to the historical, political, or social forces of the day.

Just so you know, I am a theology grad student at a Catholic university (I know, I know - you never would have guessed, right?).

—Rick Stump
May 2003

JoT

top

Gay Pride Parade, Seattle, 2003
click photo for next