Second
Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 64 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Mt. 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.
Objection 2: Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.
Objection 3: Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and "we wish our friends to live and to exist," according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Ps. 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."
I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6).
Reply to Objection 1: Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.
Reply to Objection 2: According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.
Reply to Objection 3: By sinning man departs from
the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his
manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls
into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is
useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: "Man, when he was in
honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made
like to them," and Prov. 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise."
Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his
dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill
a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the
Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).
Second
Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 64 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem lawful for a private
individual to kill a man who has sinned. For nothing unlawful is commanded in
the Divine law. Yet, on account of the sin of the molten calf, Moses commanded (Ex.
32:27): "Let every man kill his brother, and friend, and
neighbor." Therefore it is lawful for private individuals to kill a sinner.
Objection 2: Further, as stated above (Article
[2], ad 3), man, on account of sin, is compared to the beasts. Now it is
lawful for any private individual to kill a wild beast, especially if it be
harmful. Therefore for the same reason, it is lawful for any private individual
to kill a man who has sinned.
Objection 3: Further, a man, though a private
individual, deserves praise for doing what is useful for the common good. Now
the slaying of evildoers is useful for the common good, as stated above (Article
[2]). Therefore it is deserving of praise if even private individuals kill
evil-doers.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i)
[*Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8]: "A man who, without
exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of
murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not
given him."
I answer that, As stated above (Article
[2]), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the
welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge
of the community's welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed
limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body.
Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public
authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put
evildoers to death.
Reply to Objection 1: The person by whose authority
a thing is done really does the thing as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii).
Hence according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 21), "He slays not who owes
his service to one who commands him, even as a sword is merely the instrument to
him that wields it." Wherefore those who, at the Lord's command, slew their
neighbors and friends, would seem not to have done this themselves, but rather
He by whose authority they acted thus: just as a soldier slays the foe by the
authority of his sovereign, and the executioner slays the robber by the
authority of the judge.
Reply to Objection 2: A beast is by nature distinct
from man, wherefore in the case of a wild beast there is no need for an
authority to kill it; whereas, in the case of domestic animals, such authority
is required, not for their sake, but on account of the owner's loss. On the
other hand a man who has sinned is not by nature distinct from good men; hence a
public authority is requisite in order to condemn him to death for the common
good.
Reply to Objection 3: It is lawful for any private individual to do anything for the common good, provided it harm nobody: but if it be harmful to some other, it cannot be done, except by virtue of the judgment of the person to whom it pertains to decide what is to be taken from the parts for the welfare of the whole.