The White House deserves praise for condemning Iran over their violations of religious freedom. Hopefully they have time for one more:
A migrant worker from the Sudan was beheaded yesterday as the punishment for practicing sorcery in Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International had campaigned to release the man with no avail.
A Sudanese man convicted of sorcery was beheaded by sword on Sept. 20, in Medina, Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Gazette says the Interior Ministry issued a statement saying the African had “’Practiced witchcraft and sorcery,’ which are illegal under Shariah law.”
Abdul Hamid bin Hussein Mostafa al-Fakki, a migrant worker from Sudan, was arrested in 2005 in Medina on charges of witchcraft, by the Mutawa’een, the religious police known as the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. His trial was held in secret in 2007 and according to Bikyamasr al-Fakki was found guilty of “Producing a spell designed to lead to the reconciliation of his client’s divorced parents.”
While the U.S. doesn’t have much influence with Iran, we can—and should—put pressure on the Saudis to stop these types of abuses.
September 30th, 2011 | 2:31 pm
The number of human rights abuses the U.S. should pressure “our friends” the Saudis to stop is enormous.
September 30th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
While I think it is appalling that anyone should be put to death for sorcery, I can’t help but remember Exodus 22:18, “You shall not permit a sorceress to live.” I am not really sure why it is objectionable to follow this commandment but absolutely mandatory to obey the commandments in Exodus 20:2–17.
Is there no such thing as sorcery? (I think there isn’t, but I doubt that many here will agree with me.) Or is death simply too great a punishment for practicing sorcery?
September 30th, 2011 | 3:12 pm
David, to be succinct: when we look at the laws set forth in the Old Testament, we see (at least) two major varieties: those based upon natural law, and those based upon the governance of a people given their particular cultural situation. One of the major problems the Israelites were always struggling against was a creeping paganism, in practice and belief. And because such a thing destabilized all of society, such a thing was seen as morally reprehensible.
Such a condition, however, no longer presents itself as a direct threat to Jewish identity or community, and is thus not mandated, much as – in the West – Pope John Paul II argues that the death penalty (though valid from a Christian standpoint if certain criteria exist) no longer applies in the modern era.
One may rationally argue, I suppose, that sorcery threatens the stability of Saudi Arabia, and is thus a capital offense. We might have a good conversation about that, but it does not change the objective malfeasance of a “modern” culture behaving in such a way.
September 30th, 2011 | 3:27 pm
It is amazing to me that no presidential candidate of either party demagogues against Saudi Arabia, since the American people can’t stand them. It’s not like they’d have to actually follow through with the rhetoric (they are politicians, after all). Quite strange.
September 30th, 2011 | 3:55 pm
FJM,
But the Catechism says,
It seems the Catholic Church still takes sorcery and related practices very seriously indeed, and I cannot imagine why a society, if it believed such things were possible (which I believe we do not, in the United States), could not penalize those who practiced sorcery.
September 30th, 2011 | 4:33 pm
Whether or not sorcery is “real,” anyone who believes themselves to be a sorcerer is practicing idolatry.
Exodus 22:18 is valid within its context. But it needs to be understood in context, that is, of the written Torah. The written Torah is not the Talmud is not what David Gelernter calls “Torah of the heart.” It is, moreover, not the Gospel.
David, are you being obtuse? Yes, there is a hierarchy of laws such that some are more fundamental than others, and there is a process of exegesis and sometimes a choice to be made regarding the extent to which laws actually need to be enforced. Was anyone suggesting otherwise?
In “Goedel, Escher, Bach,” Douglas Hofstadter discusses the difference between the mechanical and intelligent modes of reading a text. In the mechanical mode, language is interpreted as a collection of self-referential patterns which have no intrinsic meaning outside of their internal rules. This is much the same as how a computer executes a series of codes. It is, I would argue, how Islam reads sacred scripture.
September 30th, 2011 | 4:41 pm
David Nickol . . .could not penalize those who practiced sorcery.
I wouldn’t have a problem with “penalizing” him in a manner that was commiserate with the crime. But chopping someone’s head off because they cast a spell trying to get divorced people back together is a bit excessive.
September 30th, 2011 | 5:06 pm
Re: Brian “It is amazing to me that no presidential candidate of either party demagogues against Saudi Arabia”
The 60 BILLION dollar arms deal the U.S. Government and Merchants of Death cut with the Saudis last year may have something to do with the profound indifference.
September 30th, 2011 | 6:55 pm
David Nickol: As far as I can tell, Christian churches see “witchcraft”, etc. merely as superstition—raising the creature above the Creator, etc. That’s the objection to astrology, Ouija boards and the like.
It is ridiculously unserious to compare this attitude to the Saudi (I can not include all Moslems here) attitude. I lived in Saudi Arabia and remember several cases of “sorcery”. The muttawa (Islamic religious police) believe that witchcraft, sorcery, djinns (“genies”), etc. are not just superstitious—they believe they are real. They also believe the “sorcerers” are practicing polytheism and this is a capital offense. They kill them. The accounts of the executions have been written up by the US Dept. of State’s annual Human Rights Report and their International Religious Freedom Report (which was subject of another FT discussion). I participated, albeit in a small part, in one such report.
The executions in Riyadh are carried out in Deera Square (AKA as “Clock Tower Square” or “Chop Chop Square”). The usual time of execution or judicial amputation is Friday, after prayers in the mosque. The accused is dragged to the place of execution—not difficult, because they have had blood removed and are dopey and weak. A huge crowd is assembled and forced to watch. Most remain silent, and as far as I could tell, were shocked and frightened. If you are unlucky enough to be dragooned by the police, you will have the horrible experience of seeing the victim’s terrified and helpless face. You would never forget it if you did. I guarantee that.
So how does this horror compare to the anodyne words of the Catholic catechism cited above? Has your Sunday experience in a Catholic Church actually included cursing and death threats against witches? Really? Did your parish priest preside over a beheading?
I know you enjoy being a gadfly, but please don’t use the horrible suffering of real people to score silly little points against the Catholic church.
September 30th, 2011 | 7:31 pm
Aburd, of course… Sounds more like “white magic” than what the Bible called “witchcraft”.
in reality, although most witches are falsely accused, one needs to recognize there is a reality behind this superstition.
When I worked in Africa, we saw poisoning by “enemies” and abortions from “medicine” given out by “witches”, and some “witches” will murder animals or even humans to make the medicine, or to cast a spell for one’s business to be successful.
The resurgence of HIV has caused many educated “christians” in Africa to resort to such things to be cured (hence the paragraph cited above from the Catholic Catechism)…
One doesn’t have to believe in the devil to recognize that Abortion doctors and Hannibal Lector types would be called “Witches” in more primitive lands.
September 30th, 2011 | 7:54 pm
I love how the US media frequently trashes Iran’s human rights record but turns a blind eye to Saudi Arabia. Women there can’t drive, can’t go out of the house without a man, can’t travel alone. They BEHEAD PEOPLE IN PUBLIC SQUARES! What year is this? 1506 BC? We need to stop focusing on Iran and get rid of the tyrannical terrorist al-Saud regime.
September 30th, 2011 | 8:53 pm
Thanks you for bringing this to light Joe Carter, or I would have missed it.
But David, the Catechism says:
September 30th, 2011 | 10:56 pm
David brings up a point worth thinking about. What process do we Christians use to decide which OT edicts we obey and which we consign to the cultural situation of their time? How do we reconcile the Leviticus directives(Lev 19:19) we have no intention of following, with the ones(Lev 19:18) we universally intend to follow with the ones(Lev 18:22) some follow and some do not? While I suspect that it is easy for most of us to come to a conclusion about the rightness of beheading a supposed sorcerer the underlying principle is actually a bit more mysterious. And of course isn’t mystery at the heart of a Christian’s faith? Honestly, I think acknowledging and exploring that is more important than having an exegesis for every passage of scripture.
On a side note, I’d think any perceived criticism from David would fall more on Protestants than Catholics in this situation. And the Catechism seems to take a decidedly less serious view of sorcery than Exodus does.
September 30th, 2011 | 10:58 pm
Saudia Arabia – and Islam – aren’t the only places and creeds that do such things…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/22beliefs.html
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v196340339cSNnb35
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-af-nigeria-child-witches,0,5276725.story
September 30th, 2011 | 11:33 pm
David, are you being obtuse?
I know you enjoy being a gadfly, but please don’t use the horrible suffering of real people to score silly little points against the Catholic church.
Patrick and Peg,
Thank you for your kind words.
It seems to me there are two extremes in the Catholic Church (with probably most people somewhere in between). There are those who believe that getting involved with the supernatural—right up to and including exorcisms—is medieval superstition and for modern, rational adults, is just silly. They think exorcists are an embarrassment to Catholicism. Then there are those who believe that even trivial dabbling with the occult may open the way to very dangerous situations, up to and including demonic possession (or worse). I think what the Catechism says is open to interpretation either way.
It seems to me how seriously you take “You shall not permit a sorceress to live” depends on where you stand on the reality of supernatural events occurring in everyday life. There are people who write for First Things—Archbishop Chaput, for example—who are quite serious about demonic action in the world today. Of course, he would not recommend beheading someone for practicing sorcery, and I doubt that anyone else in the Catholic Church would, but look up what exorcists like Gabriele Amorth have to say, or listen to this quite interesting interview with an American exorcist on Busted Halo, and it is clear they are not speaking metaphorically when they talk of demonic influences in the world. They are talking about real demons. When Father Amorth says, “There are three main works of occultism: magic, spiritism and Satanism. The one who is dedicated to these things exposes himself to the extraordinary action of the demon,” he means it.
So how does this horror compare to the anodyne words of the Catholic catechism cited above? . . . Did your parish priest preside over a beheading?
My parish priest, from 5th grade until I went away to college, was extremely fond of telling stories about St. John Vianney, also known as the Curé of Ars, and his encounters with the devil. It was some of the most frightening stuff I have ever heard in my life.
Wikipedia tells us, “The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years’ War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 100,000 executions.” Islam is very roughly 500 years younger than Christianity, and if you take a look at where Christianity was 500 years ago, Christians were burning witches and heretics.
Now, I doubt that there are any in the Catholic Church who would be taken seriously who would want to go back to burning witches, but I am sure there are many who feel that the average Catholic today is far too “modern” in his or her disbelief in the supernatural.
September 30th, 2011 | 11:53 pm
Jay,
Thanks for the quotes from the Catechism. I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I couldn’t agree more with what John Paul II had to say about executions.
One of the points I was trying to make is that I think many people are appalled that someone would be executed for practicing sorcery because they believe that sorcery isn’t real. The more open you are to the idea that someone can invoke demons and spirits to actually affect the course of events with supernatural power, the less likely you are to scoff at the idea of punishing someone for practicing sorcery.
October 1st, 2011 | 3:18 am
AaronS,
FJM says part of what I was taught in Catholic school. Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:
But it seems to me the Old Testament prohibition against sorcery would be part of the moral law, as would prohibitions against adultery and incest. Catholics would still accept the moral principles prohibiting such things without, however, accepting the death sentence as punishment for them.
A question that sometimes comes up is whether the command to observing the sabbath was a moral command, and hence still binding, or a ceremonial command, and no longer in force.
October 1st, 2011 | 4:05 am
I wouldn’t have a problem with “penalizing” him in a manner that was commiserate with the crime. But chopping someone’s head off because they cast a spell trying to get divorced people back together is a bit excessive.
Joe Carter,
Peg says:
While I am not defending the death penalty for anything, it seems to me that if one really believes in devils or demons or evil spirits of whatever kind, attempting to invoke them to achieve some end, no matter how trivial or even benign that end might be, would still be a very serious matter. What Peg seems to be suggesting is that the punishment the Saudis inflict is overly severe because such spirits do not really exist. But the Saudis believe that they do, and also the law in Saudi Arabia is civil and religious law combined. So the Saudis are really somewhat equivalent to the Old Testament peoples. They believe that sorcery is real, and their law punishes it severely.
October 1st, 2011 | 6:55 am
David, we already have a New Testament example in how Peter treated Simon Magus in Acts 8:9-24. You can infer differences from that as how Christians are to treat such.
In acts 19, the solution to sorcery was not beheading, but a miracle that led people to repent, and burn their sorcery books, worth a lot of money. Even someone who consented to actual, physical violence against believers wasn’t killed, he was converted, and we had the apostle paul.
It’s possible to believe sorcery is real, and in the existence of demons, and not believe in that. I grew up in word of Faith, who VERY much believes in the existence of such, and no one used “suffer not a witch to live” in any sense except showing how serious a sin it was. Even the fundamentalists don’t believe in such, because they realize Christ wants repentance, not death.
October 1st, 2011 | 8:46 am
The notion that the law of Moses could be split into a moral part that is still binding on Christians and ceremonial and civil parts that are not, was vogourously rejecrted by the Catholic theologian, Ildefons Herwegen, Abbott of Maria Laach, best known for his Atike, Germanentum und Christentum, in a famous sermon.
The law of Moses—and he means the whole law—concerns the Jews alone. “Moses has not been given to us as a teacher, but only to the Jews. We have our teacher, Christ, who has submitted to us what we are to know, keep, do, and not do”
“The Apostle tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God (v.19). What commandments, we ask. Certainly only those commandments which have been given to us Christians, certainly not those commandments which have been given to the Jews by Moses.”
Again, “to have a God is not only the law of Moses but also a natural law as St. Paul says in Romans l. Consequently the prohibition to kill, to commit adultery, to steal is not only the law of Moses, but also the natural law in everybody’s heart as Paul also teaches in Romans 2”
October 1st, 2011 | 9:34 am
David Nichol – C. S. Lewis tried to make a similar point in “Mere Christianity”:
But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did-if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.
He ignores the rather stark abuses of the witch hunts, the whole ‘guilty until proven guilty’ nature of the system, though.
October 1st, 2011 | 10:02 am
“Islam is very roughly 500 years younger than Christianity, and if you take a look at where Christianity was 500 years ago, Christians were burning witches and heretics.”
I’ve never bought this excuse. People today have the advantage of modern communications, and education. It’s harder to argue in support of ignorance in the 21st century than in the 15th century. Besides which, most Moslems are not ignorant or unusually vicious, and I doubt they’d appreciate being compared to 15th century people.
“Now, I doubt that there are any in the Catholic Church who would be taken seriously who would want to go back to burning witches, but I am sure there are many who feel that the average Catholic today is far too “modern” in his or her disbelief in the supernatural.”
And?? What kind of punishment do you think these people think is appropriate for their “modern” co-religionists? Are they comparable to the Saudi mutawwa?
“It seems the Catholic Church still takes sorcery and related practices very seriously indeed, and I cannot imagine why a society, if it believed such things were possible (which I believe we do not, in the United States), could not penalize those who practiced sorcery.”
I suspect that the “many” old-poop Catholics (of whose existence you are “sure”) and indeed the Catholic Church (that takes these practices “very seriously indeed”) would consider your “modern” Catholics to be committing sins and not crimes. I suspect the “penalty” would be, what, confession? Even in backward countries—what do you think the Magisterium or the pope counsels as a penalty for sin?
I have lived in many of these countries, and know that there are Catholics (many of them newly converted) who retain some of these superstitions. The church deals with it through education, not criminal prosecution. The Chick tract version of Catholicism that you suggest is outside of my lived experience. I don’t recognize it at all.
October 1st, 2011 | 11:12 am
Thanks David. That was elucidating. Still, though, why would the moral principle stand firm while the God given penalty move about? I perceive that many Christians use their intuition to come to these types of conclusions. Where does that come from? Is it adequate to say that God built our hearts and leave it at that?
Does the reality of the incarnation of God as a human in this world change some natural laws?
October 1st, 2011 | 11:35 am
The pagan Romans had a horror of witchcraft because death by poison was to them inexplicable magic. A sword in the gut was a clear cause of death; but drinking a cup of wine laced with “the powders of inheritance” was utterly mysterious. Witches used the “hidden” [occult] properties of matter to work their deeds. Hence, the Roman death penalty for witches.
In the Vulgate, the Latin word in the passage in question means “evil-makers.”
In Renaissance times, astrology was used to “predict” the immanent downfall of rulers, and so was a form of political subversion. It was no more like the pop horoscope column in your daily paper than ancient witchcraft was like your wacky Wiccan neighbor.
Canon episcopi held that witches rode to Sabbat only in their imaginations, not in fact, and that witchcraft per se could not harm people. (Alchemists by then were shifting many occult properties to manifest properties.) And so we have the spectacle of a medieval bishop chasing with a broom a self-proclaimed witch around a locked room. She had claimed the ability to fly through keyholes and the bishop was conducting a designed experiment. Centuries later, Joseph Glanvill, a proponent of the experimental method and a member of the Royal Society, declared that the reality of sorcery could be demonstrated scientifically. His contemporary, Robert Boyle, thought witches should be systematically eliminated. Likewise Thomas Hobbes, Jean Bodin, and others.
There are those who believe that…
One of the distinguishing features of the Orthodox and the Catholic churches is that their doctrines do not depend upon what people believe, but upon what the Church teaches. If people believe something different, that is a problem of catechesis.
October 1st, 2011 | 11:49 am
I know you enjoy being a gadfly, but please don’t use the horrible suffering of real people to score silly little points against the Catholic church.
If this gadfly may make one more comment. I cited the Catechism’s passages on the occult not to make silly points against the Catholic Church, but to show that the Catholic Church considers involvement with the occult to be a serious matter.
As far as I can tell, Christian churches see “witchcraft”, etc. merely as superstition—raising the creature above the Creator, etc. That’s the objection to astrology, Ouija boards and the like.
I think a great many Catholics would find this is a “watered down” interpretation of Church teaching, which is not that using Ouija boards or Tarot cards, or attending seances are equivalent to knocking on wood, or avoiding the number 13, or not walking under ladders or leaving a hat on the bed, but that they are dangerous pursuits that open the door to the demonic—to actual beings that exist in the world and do harm, and in extreme cases may take over a human being (demonic possession). I have a number of doubts about such things, but I definitely do not dismiss the possibility, and about the last thing in the world I would do personally is become involved with occult practices. I take seriously the warning that Ouija boards, for example, are not merely silly or “idolatrous,” but possibly dangerous. So I was in no way making a point against the Catholic Church on this matter.
October 1st, 2011 | 2:36 pm
Dblade,
Please read my previous messages:
September 30th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
While I think it is appalling that anyone should be put to death for sorcery . . . .
September 30th, 2011 | 11:53 pm
. . . . I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases . . . .
October 1st, 2011 | 3:18 am
But it seems to me the Old Testament prohibition against sorcery would be part of the moral law, as would prohibitions against adultery and incest. Catholics would still accept the moral principles prohibiting such things without, however, accepting the death sentence as punishment for them.
David, we already have a New Testament example in how Peter treated Simon Magus in Acts 8:9-24. You can infer differences from that as how Christians are to treat such.
Christians burned witches as late as the 18th century.
October 1st, 2011 | 2:53 pm
Peg,
I am trying to understand what motivates your apparent hostility. It seems to be directed against me, personally, rather than what I am saying. Please show me where I have misrepresented Catholic thought or Catholic teaching. The Church does not advocate the death penalty for sorcery or anything at all, since the Church almost entirely opposes the death penalty. I have never claimed the Catholic Church wished civil government to impose criminal penalties for sorcery.
Do you believe in demonic possession and exorcism? Or do you believe that people who are said to be possessed are suffering from some kind of psychiatric disorder? Did Jesus really cast out demons, or was he just a very charismatic personality who could heal people with psychological problems by suggestion?
October 1st, 2011 | 3:09 pm
Ray Ingles,
Excellent quote from C. S. Lewis. We do not execute witches and sorcerers because we do not believe they exist. I can understand arguments criticizing Muslims for believing sorcery is real, but it is difficult to argue that if Muslims sincerely believe people are enlisting the aid of malevolent supernatural powers, they should not deal with those people severely.
Also, Joe’s intro said, “The White House deserves praise for condemning Iran over their violations of religious freedom. Hopefully they have time for one more.” I am not sure exactly where religious freedom comes in here. I don’t think Joe meant to argue that people in Saudi Arabia must have the freedom to practice sorcery (although maybe he did). And how can we tell Muslims, in the name of religious freedom, how to punish or not punish other Muslims for breaking religious rules?
I am not saying the Muslims are right to do what they did, because I believe they are wrong. But isn’t religious freedom about allowing other people to believe what they believe rather than trying to force them to believe what we believe?
I would say this was a human rights issue, not an issue of religious freedom. When much of the civilized world protested a scheduled execution by stoning of a woman convicted as adultery, it was not about religious freedom to commit adultery, and it was not about adultery being a minor offense. It was a human rights issue about execution and “cruel and unusual punishment.”
October 1st, 2011 | 4:49 pm
“I am trying to understand what motivates your apparent hostility. It seems to be directed against me, personally, rather than what I am saying.”
Joe Carter’s essay was about a Saudi execution, undertaken by a Wahhabist (not pan-Islamic) interpretation of Shariah law. That was the topic.
Your first comment was to cite Jewish scripture. Then you quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In both cases, you seemed to me to be bringing in equivalencies to the horrors perpetrated by Saudi shariah courts. I thought this was deliberately provocative. Your protestations seem to me to be disingenuous. I apologize if I am wrong.
October 1st, 2011 | 5:21 pm
That was addressed to your argument about how the moral law relates to sorcery, while still maintaining a belief in such. You are arguing though that we don’t execute people because we don’t believe in sorcery, and ray as well. This though was an example of how Christian in the Bible dealt with it, and it’s hard to argue that they didn’t believe Simon Magus was one, or that they believed sorcery didn’t exist. They cast out demons as Christ’s apostles for goodness sake.
The whole passage of Ephesians 6:10-18 indicates that ultimately the wrestling with such is spiritual, and not against the flesh and blood people that do so. It lists the famous “armor of God” and the weapons a Christian uses to fight such. Nowhere is it listed to use the secular power, or that those powers and principalities do not exist.
I get the feeling that you have a rational appreciation of Christianity as a system, but you don’t seem to be steeped in it. A Christian asking this:
Do you believe in demonic possession and exorcism? Or do you believe that people who are said to be possessed are suffering from some kind of psychiatric disorder? Did Jesus really cast out demons, or was he just a very charismatic personality who could heal people with psychological problems by suggestion?/i>
Would immediately know that the latter means the son of God would be either outright lying to his disciples (since He sent them also to cast out demons, and apparently it worked just using His name to do so.) or self-deluded.
It also is somewhat funny not to believe in demonic powers and yet swallow the idea of angels appearing to Jesus, physical ressurection, and divine healing. If you are going to project a materialistic explanation of one aspect, it tends to lead to similar explanations of the other.
I’m seconding the gadfly comment. It’s fine to debate, but when you start using arguments that tend to attack the roots of the faith itself, well it’s not healthy for your own spiritual formation. I’m sure Ray can attest to the corrosive effects that can have.
October 1st, 2011 | 5:39 pm
Isn’t there a distinction, though, between believing sorcery is real (in the sense of “effective as advertised”) and believing that people really practice it?
At a minimum, if you don’t believe sorcery is real, this guy was guilt of fraud, because he really *did* “practice” sorcery (assuming at least, those facts to be accurate.) That doesn’t, of course, argue for beheading him by any means, but does argue for not utterly dismissing the whole concept of punishment for sorcery.
October 1st, 2011 | 9:28 pm
Dblade –
Exactly. And some things called ‘sorcery’ by some – e.g. voudoun – are religious traditions to other people. Should there be any civil penalty for breaking a religious rule? (Especially a religion one doesn’t happen to follow?)
October 2nd, 2011 | 5:29 am
Ray Inglis
The new Penal Code, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau (promulgated September 26 – October 6, 1791) abolished, without a debate, the crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft [le blasphème, la sodomie et la sorcellerie]
When it was proposed to restore some “Offences against Religion” in the draft code of the year VIII, Cambacérès cited the Roman maxim “Deorum iniuria deiis cura” – “Offences against the gods are the gods’ business.”
That seems to me to be right.
October 2nd, 2011 | 11:36 am
Dblade,
I asked Peg whether she believed in exorcism not to call into question the exorcisms performed by Catholic priests today and those performed by Jesus during his lifetime, but to find out if she believed they were indeed evidence of supernatural phenomena. She had said:
Might something supernatural take place (no doubt in rare cases) when someone uses, say, a Ouija board? Does the Catholic Church warn against occult practices because they are seen “merely as superstition,” or might they actually be potentially dangerous encounters with real, supernatural forces? There is absolutely nothing remotely anti-Catholic or anti-Christian in raising this question.
What is really odd about the exchanges in this thread is that I am being criticized for saying, “Consider the possibility that ‘conservative’ Catholics are correct and that demons may be at work in the world.”
Peg said:
I am still trying to figure out exactly what is meant by “old-poop Catholics.” Are Catholics who believe in the reality of demons that work in the world “old poop”? Check out this interview (podcast and transcript) with a contemporary American exorcist. Is he an “old-poop” Catholic?
October 2nd, 2011 | 12:24 pm
“Offences against the gods are the gods’ business.”
Michael PS,
While that has great appeal to me as a citizen in a pluralistic democracy, I don’t see how it is applicable to a theocracy (Iran, Vatican City) or an absolute monarchy (Saudi Arabia).
October 2nd, 2011 | 3:05 pm
Folks,
Those of you who are arguing with David Nickol, go ahead, nothing I say will stop you. But consider the possibility he’s simply trying to get hits for his website.
October 2nd, 2011 | 6:14 pm
David One of the points I was trying to make is that I think many people are appalled that someone would be executed for practicing sorcery
I am trying to understand where you are coming from. We need to explore the relationship of how the man was executed for sorcery because of Wahhabism that is the main and pervading religion of Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism, a branch of Islam is very radical; supporting terrorism and funding mosques in other countries as proxies to disseminate Islamist ideology. Allah is viewed as unknowable, and he suffers under voluntarism.
Man is divorced from reason, which is why fatwas determine the course of society in Saudi. For example, women cannot drive, vote, and must have a chaperon when dealing with non-relative males. Furthermore, religious freedom to non-Muslims is tragic; crosses, religious articles, and bibles are not permitted to enter the country; churches cannot be constructed.
The man was executed because of the barbaric and backwards influence of Wahhabism. The anthropological view of man as an individual being created by God who is love (cf. Catechism 2258) is removed.
Thanks be to God we have Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium; infusing our reason with faith.
I’ve recently come across an article that is related to our discussion of Saudi that is worth the time to read:
Moderation, Saudi-Style
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/278882
October 3rd, 2011 | 12:46 am
I am trying to understand where you are coming from.
Jay,
Let me see if I can sum up what I have been saying, or trying to say:
1. It was wrong of Saudi Arabia to execute someone for practicing sorcery.
2. It is wrong for a government to execute anyone unless it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the safety of the people. Executions in modern countries are rarely, if ever, necessary.
3. It was wrong for Christians to burn “witches” in the 15th through 18th centuries, although they may have believed they were doing the right thing.
4. It may be dangerous to attempt to engage in occult practices like trying to cast spells, or communicate with the dead, or tell fortunes. You may find yourself dealing with real supernatural forces that can harm you. If this happens, it probably happens very rarely, but it is still best to avoid the occult.
5. Whether or not a person can use supernatural powers to do anything effective (for example, cast spells that work), Catholics do believe that certain supernatural, and evil, things happen in the world—things like demonic possession.
6. Even for devout Christians, it is very difficult to apply many of the commandments in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, to life today (if they can be applied at all). This is one reason why the Catholic Church relies on Tradition and the Magisterium and not just the Bible.
October 3rd, 2011 | 4:28 am
David Nichol
Talleyrand, who was, after all, a bishop, approved of Cambacérès’s approach.
He thought that, rather than using temporal punishments, the godless should be left to their own devices; then, when misfortunes befell them (as happens in every life) the devout would point to them and say, “Behold the impious ones! They neglected the rites! Truly God is a patient avenger” which would be far more edifying.
October 3rd, 2011 | 7:42 am
Mostly in agreement with David here but also with Joe’s original post that Saudi Arabia should be bashed for what they did and continue to do….but a few points:
1. I disagree that ancients confused witchcraft/magic with natural elements. For example, natural poisons were well known in ancient times (for example, hemlock, which was used to execute Socrates). Herbal remedies and poisons were legitimate areas of knowledge at all points in our history.
2. I disagree that older persecution of occult practices had anything to do with political subversion. Yes maybe kings consulted astrologers and the enemies of kinds did so too, but much occultism in ancient times had nothing to do with politics on a grand scale but much more mundane and petty relationships between common people. An astrologer 1,000 years ago was more likely to be consulted by a woman wanting to know when she could best conceive or a landowner seeking advice on a business venture than a rebel figure trying to discredit a king.
3. CS Lewis’s opinion that the reason we don’t persecute witchcraft today is simply because we don’t believe it exists doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. If 500+ years ago Christians simply felt that you could kill a person by means of witchcraft then it doesn’t logically follow that witches should be burned anymore than you would burn gunsmiths simply because guns can kill people. If they believed witchcraft could kill a person, then they would simply charge witches with murder, provided the witch did in fact use her knowledge to kill someone. It makes more sense to just call a spade a spade. The persecution of witches was simply religious persecution. Whether or not witches had any actual supernatural powers was a secondary issue. More importantly they were religious heretics who challenged the state’s claim to a monopoly on religious authority and power. This was stopped not by people realizing that witches ‘had no real power’ but by people embracing a secularist world view.
4. Likewise take Joe’s stance:
I wouldn’t have a problem with “penalizing” him in a manner that was commiserate with the crime. But chopping someone’s head off because they cast a spell trying to get divorced people back together is a bit excessive.
a. Seems to assume witchcraft isn’t real. Say the man was planning or attempted to kidnap the couple at gunpoint and force them to undo their divorce. While Joe probably wouldn’t view that as worthy of the death penalty, its certainly a pretty serious crime. It totally violates the individuals’ right to manage their lives themselves, totally tramples any respect for their free will. Yet if for a moment you thought there might be something to this magic stuff isn’t that what this man was attempting to do? Use supernatural powers (as opposed to the natural power of a gun pointed at a head) to force unwilling people to remarry?
b. Seems to violate religious freedom. Assuming witchcraft isn’t real, that the man’s actions were no more harmful than ‘wishful thinking’…then even a minor ‘penalty’ is essentially religious persecution. Joe would just see a bit less persecution because he doesn’t take the occult element here very seriously (and most Westerners don’t).
But if the occult is real, then even a secularist would probably have to support a pretty harsh penalty for the man (not death but harsh nonetheless, we can’t have people going around trying to use magic to bully us around anymore than we can let people push us around with guns, baseball bats or fists). But if it isn’t, then the man should have complete religious freedom, which includes the right to do rituals/prayers or whatnot that he may believe has power over other people. Since Joe seems to exclude a. in his statement, he seems to be in the secularist camp but either doesn’t realize it or doesn’t want to be totally in it. Long story short, you can’t end religious persecution without secularism.
5. I don’t buy the ‘young religion’ hypothesis in relation to Islam. First off, this idea sounds just too much like one of those episodes from the original Star Trek where they arrive at some planet that not only mirrors US history but even has a country with the exact geographic shape of the US! Yes you can draw historical analogies. In some ways the Sunni-Shi’ite split is *like* the Catholic-Protestant split in Christianity (or perhaps the Orthodox-Roman split that was earlier) but in other ways its *not*. Analogies are only tools for understanding, not understanding itself and the tool is ruined if you push it too far. Yes Islam may be 500 years younger but that doesn’t mean its just not as ‘mature’. Think about it, Judism is something like 2,000 years older than Christianity, Buddhism & Confusious are maybe 500 years older and Hinduism, in some form probably predates all of them. Does this mean that modern day Christians are barbaric relative to Jews, Buddhists and Hindus but no worry, just wait a few more centuries and they will ‘catch up’? Hmmmm.
5.1. The ‘young religion’ hypothesis also seems to assume that the reason Christians stopped burning witches a few hundred years ago is because they had some type of insight from experience. But no such thing happened. The Christian of 1800 was, I would say, no more ‘advanced’ in his study of Christianity or theology or the Bible than the Christian of 1600. For better and worse I would say they were more or less the same ‘type’ of people. A particular religion may be young or old but people still are born into it. A 13 yr old boy whose Jewish is still as much a 13 yr old boy as another 13 yr old boy whose being raised Mormon….a religion that’s not even 300 yrs old yet!
The issue is plain and simple, one society (Saudi Arabia) has religious persecution as a norm and many others (most of the secular, developed world) does not. We can spend a lot of time talking about why that is. SA strikes a delicate balance where its ruling elite holds onto power by ‘one upping’ religious conservatives…massive oil revenue makes the rest of the world too dependent on SA to argue with them and it allows their gov’t to pay off the citizens with no taxes….and those that bear the brunt of Saudi Arabaia’s ‘balance’ are foreigners who are imported in mass to do nearly all the grunt work. But that’s another big topic, the fact is Saudi Arabia’s problem is that it’s not a secular society and that is the solution to its problem. How you get there from here is a really hard problem.
October 3rd, 2011 | 10:19 am
[...] A beheading for … what? [...]
October 3rd, 2011 | 12:21 pm
Booton
A few random points on your rather interesting post.
The Law of the XII Tables penalised witchcraft – “Si mala carmina incantisset…[If he mutters bad songs...]” – Although it was later used against satirists, as well. However the Lex Cornelia de sicariis & veneficis [Cornelius (Sulla's) Law on Hit-men & Poisoners] does give some colour to the view that poisons and magic were sometimes confused, for it speaks of charms and potions together. Of course, “Inheritance Powder” was well-known; a term that included both arsenic and strychnine, the latter, coming from Sardica, gave its name to the “risus sardonicus [Sardonic smile] from the rictus it produces.
As to the political element, it certainly is true that several emperors believed their opponents were using black arts against them and this led to purges against witches, “sacrificuli” and the like. The German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (St Thomas Aquinas’s uncle) thought so too and so did King James VI & I (who wrote a book on the subject). No doubt, their concerns may have made witchcraft a higher policing priority.
How far witchcraft was equated with heresy is unclear; the Inquisition treated it as such, but the temporal courts exercised jurisdiction over witchcraft, too, which they never did for heresy, which could only be determined by the ecclesiastical judge.
October 3rd, 2011 | 1:49 pm
While I want to make it clear that I approve of pressure on Muslim countries to modify their harsh laws, when is it legitimate and when isn’t it to pressure a country or a religious body about its beliefs and practices? While not permitting women to be Catholic priests is a far cry from not permitting women to drive cars (and subjecting them to corporal punishment if they do), are women’s rights advocates misguided if the criticized the Catholic Church for its exclusion of women from the priesthood (or from the exclusion, in some places, of girls as altar servers)? How do you respect the rights of people to practice their religion as they see fit, and at the same time accuse them of human rights abuses? Is there some universally obvious standard for women’s rights that overrides any religion’s teachings on the issue?
I am happy to go on record as believing that not permitting women to drive constitutes oppression of women, and lashing as a form of punishment for the “crime” of driving while female is barbaric. In fact, I think corporal punishment for any crime is barbaric. So this seems to me a clear case. But what if I think some Christian denominations oppress women, too? Is it legitimate of me to speak against them and attempt to pressure them to change?
October 4th, 2011 | 2:07 am
Thank you David for summing up your points. I have a better understanding of your views.
are women’s rights advocates misguided if the criticized the Catholic Church for its exclusion of women from the priesthood (or from the exclusion, in some places, of girls as altar servers)?
It is safe to say, one will not be executed, given lashes, or put in prison for criticizing the Catholic Church.
I do not understand how the Catholic Church can allow a woman to be a priest when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Paul VI’s Inter insigniores and Blessed Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio sacerdotalis apostolic letter, again states:
Perhaps David, you can give an argument for women to be ordained as priests in the Catholic Church in light of Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
Is it legitimate of me to speak against them [Christian denominations] and attempt to pressure them to change?
How would you attempt to pressure the Catholic Church to change, in harmony of Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium? (Catechism 96-100)
October 4th, 2011 | 5:34 am
Michael PS
One day I was browsing Barnes and Noble and stumbled upon a book by the chief exorcist for Rome. What struck me about the book was not that the author felt that exorcisms were real and such but by the numerous references he made that indicated how common occult practices are in a Catholic country like Italy. Quite often he would casually say something like people will respond to a demonic possession by going to a witch to ‘remove a curse’….or people will employ a witch to curse someone…or perhaps entice a lover or something like that.
(Amusing side story, when my late father in law was getting fed up with my sister-in-law living in his house, he declared he was going to buy a black candle from ‘an old Italian woman in Newark’ for like $60. I pointed out to him that he could get a black candle from Shop-rite for $3. He did and it produced no supernatural effects to remove her. But I also suspect a Catholic exorcism would have likewise been impotent against concentrated moochery)
So it seems to me that esp. in ‘the old country’ occult practices have been around for centuries as a kind of parallel religion, esp. in Catholic Countries. While they sometimes maybe become political they are for the most part non-political.
October 4th, 2011 | 9:16 am
Jay,
I don’t want to discuss women’s ordination. It was just an example. But if you use scripture, tradition, and the magisterium to argue against women’s ordination, why can’t Muslims use the Koran and sharia law to argue that women shouldn’t drive, or sorcerers should be executed, or thieves should have their hands chopped off. If we all respect each others’ freedom of religion absolutely, then how can we criticize Muslims for practicing their religion? So clearly there must be some kind of “higher standard” that we can appeal to, outside of any particular religion, to criticize other religions. If we say, “Catholics do not approve of executing sorcerers,” why can’t the Muslims say, “You follow your religion, and we will follow ours”?
October 4th, 2011 | 11:43 am
David — there’s something of a category difference between “we don’t confer a certain office on women, but they are subject to no positive penalty for being women” and “we beat/behead/whip/stone people for unwanted behavior X.”
IOW, an institution withholding a privilege, even if you deem the basis of it unjust, is rather different from a criminal penalty for an action, particularly a corporal or capital one.
October 4th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
Booton wrote
“So it seems to me that esp. in ‘the old country’ occult practices have been around for centuries as a kind of parallel religion, esp. in Catholic Countries. While they sometimes maybe become political they are for the most part non-political.”
Oh, I agree with that. My point was that, if Caligula, say, was convinced the shadow-men were messing with his head, because his political opponents had put a hex on him, then the authorities would humour him by rounding up the usual suspects.
I know a place in the Western Isles of Scotland (solidly Calvinist), where corn dollies are still, occasionally, hung from trees, usually near a spring or pool. I suspect, too, that the saucers of milk they put out at night are not always for the cat.
On a winter’s evening, one can still hear old tales told in village pubs of the fairies or “Little People”; tales of bewitchings, changelings and murrain in the flocks. And I have heard such tales interrupted, by those who consider any mention of “na Sithein” as unchancy.
On Hallowe’en, Hallow fires are still lit and“samhnag” or lighted lanterns, often hollowed-out neeps (turnips) put in windows and over the doors of byres and bothies to scare off bogles [ghosts]. I understand this custom is still followed in America.
October 4th, 2011 | 3:50 pm
David, I agree with pentamom’s reasoning that:
an institution withholding a privilege, even if you deem the basis of it unjust, is rather different from a criminal penalty for an action, particularly a corporal or capital one.
You asked a great question:
there must be some kind of “higher standard” that we can appeal to, outside of any particular religion, to criticize other religions.
Please look at The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR).
Saudi Arabia violates many of the articles of UNDHR; I will cite one:
Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Earlier, you went ‘on record’ to state that, “corporal punishment for any crime is barbaric. So this seems to me a clear case.” I agree.
I must now bow out. I have learned much from interacting with you and the commenters. Thank you for the discussion. (While replying to you, I could not help but think of Palestrina’s beautiful music Tu es Petrus [You are Peter].)
October 4th, 2011 | 4:01 pm
I doubt you’ll find many actual lighted lanterns in America to ‘scare off ghosts’. More likely plenty of pumpkins….many plastic with electric lights.
But its interesting how there is this kind of ‘shadow religion’ that follows Christianity around. Consider the ghost story, we all instantly recognize its conventions yet its theological dubiousness is never bothered to be questioned. Consider shows like ‘Touched by an Angel’ or the older ‘Highway to Heaven’ which seemlessly asserted angels are just people who died and come back to act as a type of very physical ghost. If you really think about it, this theology is probably harder to reconcile with Orthodox Christianity than The Davinnci Code, which at its base simply speculated that Jesus when married and fathered a child, while if that was true that would be kind of surprising…but I don’t think it would overturn Christianity in any fundamental way (although theologians would probably have to wrestle with what exactly it means for someone to be in ‘Jesus’s bloodline’). I’m reminded of Chesterton’s comments about the ‘household gods’ of the Roman Empire.
October 4th, 2011 | 10:21 pm
David — there’s something of a category difference between “we don’t confer a certain office on women, but they are subject to no positive penalty for being women” and “we beat/behead/whip/stone people for unwanted behavior X.”
pentamom,
I was not trying to imply any equivalence at all. My question is simply about respecting freedom of religion versus protesting someone else’s religious practices. Jay’s suggestion of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an independent standard strikes me as reasonable.
October 5th, 2011 | 3:43 am
Jay’s suggestion of using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is attractive, but it runs into insuperable difficulties with religions claiming a divine revelation.
One cannot accept a text as God’s revealed will and then judge it by some criterion, external to the revelation. Logically, it amounts to saying, “I am right and God is wrong,” although there is room for a considerable amount of finessing.
October 5th, 2011 | 8:14 am
For what it’s worth, the US Dept. of State uses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to assess conditions in various countries, including Saudi Arabia. I noticed this in the 2010 report on Saudi Arabia:
“On September 28, the Saudi Gazette reported that a court in Qatif sentenced two third-grade students to six months in prison and 120 lashes for stealing examination papers.”
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/
October 5th, 2011 | 8:20 am
Michael PS, there are difficulties as you noted. Here is what wikipedia says:
“Islamic criticism
The governments of Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries because they claimed their governments were based on the Sharia.[21] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the UDHR was “a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition”, which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[22] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[23] an alternative document that says people have “freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah”, without any discrimination on grounds of “race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.”[24] However, the Cairo Declaration has been criticized for failing to fully recognize freedom of religion as a “fundamental and non-derogable right”.[25]
[edit]
October 5th, 2011 | 9:20 am
Another solution is to reject divine revelation as far as politics goes and accept secularism. In effect that would curtail some degree of religious freedom. A society would no longer be able to behead people (or burn them or torture them) for theological crimes. But one does not have to be a Christopher Hitchens to view that as a feature, not a bug, in the system.
October 6th, 2011 | 3:36 am
Booton
Your proposed solution is commonly referred to as “No Establishment,” “Laïcité” or “Separation of Church and State.”
The Islamic alternative, in both the Ottoman and Mughal empires was the “Millet” system of largely autonomous faith communities.
October 6th, 2011 | 10:29 am
Well it works for me, being that I haven’t been beheaded, burned or tortured.
Autonomous faith communities doesn’t really address the religious freedom issue. For example, a while ago I heard about attempts to have the Egyptian gov’t ban a film. The people seeking to ban the film were Coptic Christians and they wanted to ban the film because it was about divorce in their community. The larger Muslim society was indifferent to the film because divorce is permitted in Islam (and some Coptics will convert, it seems, in order to get a divorce which their ‘autonomous faith community’ won’t let them have).
Simply seeking to redistribute religious oppression amonst an oligarachy of established religious big wigs is not much of an improvement over having oppression monopolized by a single established church IMO. The idea of secularism, or no establishment, etc. says directly you just don’t get to do religious oppression period.
This does change the faith even if it doesn’t alter any word in sacred texts or whatnot. Consider how harmless Joe holds this poor fellow who was beheaded. A thousand years ago Joe might have felt some sympathy for him, might have disagreed with the sentence, but he wouldn’t have considered the guy harmless and he wouldn’t have been shocked at the idea of the state putting a punishment down on him….and probably a serious punishment at that, not some minor fine or slap on the wrist.
In a sense the enlightenment has oppressed a particular type of religion. It is no longer practical today to be the type of Christian that was common a thousand years ago. But since no official text has been altered by state mandate, no ritual put under gov’t oversight it’s really easy to not notice this at all. But I’m not seeing any good alternative to freedom here so let’s go with it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact