Notes on Stromata Book 1

There are a number of interesting topics covered in Book 1; in particular, there is that of the cooperation of philosophy with theology, the former being the "handmaid" of the latter. There's also some lengthy discussion on the history of western culture and its ideas. I'll limit my report to his principled argument for the goodness of capital punishment.

The argument (at Stromata 1.27)

An analogy is made from the body (which is made of bodily parts) to the whole person (which is made of body and soul). 

He who seeks the health of the body amputates incurably diseased parts of the body so that the sound parts will not perish with them. 

And he does so not out of malice but for the health of the body. 

The human person is made of both body and soul. 

Moreover, the soul is more precious than the body. 

Punishment aims at delivering the soul from iniquity.

… it is the highest and most perfect good, when one is able to lead back any one from the practice of evil to virtue and well-doing, which is the very function of the law.

 

Corporal punishment is good and appropriate... when the malady is incurable… for the sake of “the rest”…

… when [the law] sees any one in such a condition as to appear incurable, posting to the last stage of wickedness, then in its solicitude for the rest, that they may not be destroyed by it (just as if amputating a part from the whole body), it condemns such an one to death, as the course most conducive to health…

Being judged by the Lord, says the apostle, we are chastened, that we may not be condemned with the world. [1 Corinthians 11:32]

‘the rest’ here may apply to the rest of the person punished (in keeping with the analogy made) or the rest of the people.

Clement means both… as for the rest of the people (under the law)…

And to prove that example correct, [Solomon] says directly to the purpose: A clever man, when he sees the wicked punished, will himself be severely chastised, for the fear of the Lord is the source of wisdom. Prov 22:3-4

As for the person punished…

… when one fails into any incurable evil… it will be for his good if he is put to death. For the law is beneficent, being able to make some righteous from unrighteous, if they will only give ear to it, and by releasing others from present evils…

 

A caveat?

It is essential, certainly, that the providence which manages all [the authority administering the punishment?], be both supreme and good. 

It is essential, if the law is to serve its function, that it be administered by an authority whose so doing might represent/constitute divine chastening?

 

The reasons given are strictly restorative and exhortative.

No mention is made of possible harm to others as a result of leniency, nor retribution, which are the key considerations of the debate today.

 

1566 (Trent)

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

 

1992 (1997)

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56. 69 Cf. Gen 4:10.)

 

2018

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

 

DSMW