>>195822,
>>195823,
>>195824,
>>195825,
>>195826,
>>195827,
>>195828,
>>195829,
>>195830,
>>195831,
>>195832,
>>195833,
>>195834,
>>195835,
>>195836,
>>195837,
>>195838,
>>195839,
>>195840,
>>195841,
>>195842,
>>195843,
>>195844,
>>195845,
>>195846,
>>195847,
>>195848,
>>195849,
>>195850,
>>195851,
>>195852,
>>195853,
>>195854,
>>195855,
>>195856,
>>195857,
>>195858,
>>195859,
>>195860,
>>195861,
>>195862,
>>195863,
>>195864,
>>195865,
>>195866,
>>195867,
>>195868,
>>195869,
>>195870,
>>195871,
>>195872,
>>195873,
>>195874,
>>195875,
>>195876,
>>195877,
>>195878,
>>195879,
>>195880,
>>195881,
>>195882,
>>195883,
>>195884,
>>195885,
>>195886,
>>195887,
>>195888,
>>195889,
>>195890,
>>195891,
>>195892,
>>195893,
>>195894,
>>195895,
>>195896,
>>195897,
>>195898,
>>195899,
>>195900,
>>195901,
>>195902,
>>195903,
>>195904,
>>195905,
>>195906,
>>195907,
>>195908,
>>195909,
>>195910,
>>195911,
>>195912,
>>195913Lepanto Institute @LepantoInst - Photo: Question 64. Murder Article 2. Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Matthew 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 Ezekiel 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 (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 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 Corinthians 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.
95