"Corporal Punishment" in the Bible
Καλημέρα, Δ.Α.! Σήμερα είναι τετάρτη 5 Οκτώβριου 2016. Πως είσαι?
So, I decided to transcribe a conversation we had a while ago. Here it is with a few modifications:
Those were some of the quotes you sent me a long time ago. The issue of corporal punishment lies at the heart of many Christian families’ children's religious formation. Most are conflicted because of the Proverbs passages that you outlined (Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15, 29:17). However, the features of this corporal punishment agenda are fundamentally based upon Protestant precepts and interpretations. The Church’s teachings and Tradition do not follow the corporal punishment line of thought. She seeks to counteract the superficial but persuasive effects of these scriptural passages.
Did you know the book of Proverbs is one of poetry? The writer of this book probably used a well-known tool to form an image of authority. Contextual interpreters of the bible (Christian scholars, as opposed to literal interpreters) wonder if "rod" is not used metaphorically, as in a shepherd's rod. A shepherd would never beat his sheep - they are too precious and delicate. A shepherd uses his rod to gently guide his flock - not to strike them. "Rod" may also be understood as a unit of measure that figuratively refers to the Torah (like our term "scales of justice"). In other words, we can interpret the proverb: "Spare your child the 'rod' (the Torah), and they won't 'measure up.'"[6] When you re-read the "rod verses," use the concept of parental authority when you come to the word "rod," rather than the concept of beating or spanking. I particularly like the explanation given in [7]. I recommend that you check it out. Just keep in mind that the meaning of words in Hebrew is not only defined by the dictionary definition. There is an idea infused into the meaning of every word that expresses the understanding of the mind that heard the word. Hebrew is a very Eastern thinking language and cannot be understood with a Greek/Western thinking mind [7].
Ultimately, the Old Testament must be understood through the prism of the New Testament - which we consider as the fulfillment of the law. Indeed, the Fathers of the Church, consistently declared that the severe sanctions of the Old Testament were abrogated by the mild and gentle laws of Christ. The New Testament has a very different way of dealing with sinners than did the Old Testament.
Jesus's own example was discipline, not punishment. Discipline recognizes that violence is not a good teaching tool. Jesus himself never used violence on people. When he became angry at the money changers in the temple, he turned over their tables, and he cracked a whip at the "sheep and oxen alike. [8]" Not the people. Even in this most dramatic account of Jesus' anger, he does not turn the whip on the offenders, who are fully accountable and culpable adults. Because violence is violence, regardless of degree, just as sin, whether venial or mortal, is offensive to God.
Ok, you may say, Jesus is all nice and dandy… But what does the Church have to say about corporal punishment? To properly examine this question, let me present a venerable theological phrase, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" ("As the Church prays, the Church believes"). In other words, if you really want to know what the Church, the Mystical Body and extension into this world of Christ himself, has to say about something, look to the way she prays, or at the nature of the Sacraments.
How does the Church "pray about", or treat, sinful behavior? She employs the Sacrament of Reconciliation. When we do wrong, we go to our Mother, the Church, for forgiveness. She hears us, holds us, forgives us, and, finally, as penance for our sinfulness, she sends us to make amends and spend time in prayer, learning and discipleship at the feet of the Master.
The Church does not add to our suffering by physical punishment. By that same token, she does not believe in doing so to children. Sure, there have been periods in Church history when penance included corporal punishment of the most excruciating nature. The sad legacy of the Inquisition is testimony to this fact. Yet, as the Church grew in age, wisdom, and grace, she abandoned such practices for those which more closely modeled the ministry and commandments of Christ.
Modern Catholic scholars reflect this conviction when they say that this legacy of corporal punishment "... reflect[s] neither the spirit nor the methods Christ who said: 'Learn of Me, for I am meek and humble of heart'..." and that the Church should not "employ physical force to coerce the mind of man. . .Our only instruments in the domain of conscience must be reason, God's grace, human kindness and love.[9]"
The Church condemns any action which "violates the integrity of the human person, such as… attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity… [4]" The Church teaches that we must not resort to violence out of expediency. Consequences for wrongdoing must be "in conformity to the dignity of the human person [5]." The violence which is at the core of spanking makes it inherently offensive to the dignity of the human person.
There is nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which supports the right of parents to use corporal punishment. Even more, term “punishment” is not even used (curiously absent I would say!) in the section of church teaching that refers to parents’ “mission as educators” to “educate, guide, correct, instruct and discipline” their children through “word and example… cordial openness, dialog…” [1].
Corporal punishment remains a matter of prudential judgment for Catholics, but as the Church continues to reflect on this issue, she appears to be moving consistently–and internationally–toward opposing it. The position of the Church is to look for closeness, gentleness and firmness. And a beautiful way to express this is through the use of the parable of the prodigal son [2].
Using the example of the father in the parable of the prodigal son, Pope Francis says, "Fathers need to be patient. Sometimes you can do nothing other than wait; pray and wait with patience, gentleness, magnanimity, and mercy. A good father knows how to wait and how to forgive, from the bottom of his heart."[11]
I hope this can shed some light into those passages. I do want to thank you for sharing them with me. While I did not give them the required attention when you initially sent them to me, I am grateful for your sharing. This was a great opportunity to learn about what the Church says about this issue and also to reaffirm my position of no corporal punishment.
REFERENCES:
[1] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae
[2] Luke 15, 11-32. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[3] Letter to the families, 1994. https://w2.vatican.va/content/
[4] Gaudium et Spes. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[6] http://nospank.net/popcak.htm
[7] http://aolff.org/spare-the-
[8] John 2, 15. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[9] Gregory Popcak, Parenting with Grace: Catholic Parent's Guide to Raising Almost Perfect Kids.
[10] A Christian perspective on corporal punishment. http://nospank.net/popcak.htm
[11] Pope Francis, General audience 4 February 2015.
ADDENDUM:
The interpretation of the Bible is not all literal, and positions can shift over time. Catholic interpretations accept that the Bible is full of symbols and metaphors that are not meant to be taken literally.
The Church distinguishes between two senses of Scripture (CCC 115-116):
Take for example the case of slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
So yeah, the Church can change in teachings and practice... just look, for example, how the current Pope chooses to dress (humbly) compared to what tradition suggests.
So, I decided to transcribe a conversation we had a while ago. Here it is with a few modifications:
“He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly” – Prov. 13:24
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of correction will drive it far from him.” – Prov. 22:15
“Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from Sheol.” – Prov. 23:13-14
“The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.” – Prov. 29:15
NOT SPECIFIC TO CHILDREN, BUT EQUALLY IN THE "SAY WHAAA!???" CATEGORY
“Then I will punish their transgressions with the rod,
And their iniquities with stripes (lit. marks)” – Psalms 89:32
“Wisdom is found on the lips of him who has understanding,
But a rod is for the back of him who is lacks a heart (for understanding).” – Prov. 10:3
“A whip for the horse,
A bridle for the donkey,
And a rod for the fool’s back.” – Prov. 26:3
Those were some of the quotes you sent me a long time ago. The issue of corporal punishment lies at the heart of many Christian families’ children's religious formation. Most are conflicted because of the Proverbs passages that you outlined (Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15, 29:17). However, the features of this corporal punishment agenda are fundamentally based upon Protestant precepts and interpretations. The Church’s teachings and Tradition do not follow the corporal punishment line of thought. She seeks to counteract the superficial but persuasive effects of these scriptural passages.
Did you know the book of Proverbs is one of poetry? The writer of this book probably used a well-known tool to form an image of authority. Contextual interpreters of the bible (Christian scholars, as opposed to literal interpreters) wonder if "rod" is not used metaphorically, as in a shepherd's rod. A shepherd would never beat his sheep - they are too precious and delicate. A shepherd uses his rod to gently guide his flock - not to strike them. "Rod" may also be understood as a unit of measure that figuratively refers to the Torah (like our term "scales of justice"). In other words, we can interpret the proverb: "Spare your child the 'rod' (the Torah), and they won't 'measure up.'"[6] When you re-read the "rod verses," use the concept of parental authority when you come to the word "rod," rather than the concept of beating or spanking. I particularly like the explanation given in [7]. I recommend that you check it out. Just keep in mind that the meaning of words in Hebrew is not only defined by the dictionary definition. There is an idea infused into the meaning of every word that expresses the understanding of the mind that heard the word. Hebrew is a very Eastern thinking language and cannot be understood with a Greek/Western thinking mind [7].
Ultimately, the Old Testament must be understood through the prism of the New Testament - which we consider as the fulfillment of the law. Indeed, the Fathers of the Church, consistently declared that the severe sanctions of the Old Testament were abrogated by the mild and gentle laws of Christ. The New Testament has a very different way of dealing with sinners than did the Old Testament.
Jesus's own example was discipline, not punishment. Discipline recognizes that violence is not a good teaching tool. Jesus himself never used violence on people. When he became angry at the money changers in the temple, he turned over their tables, and he cracked a whip at the "sheep and oxen alike. [8]" Not the people. Even in this most dramatic account of Jesus' anger, he does not turn the whip on the offenders, who are fully accountable and culpable adults. Because violence is violence, regardless of degree, just as sin, whether venial or mortal, is offensive to God.
Ok, you may say, Jesus is all nice and dandy… But what does the Church have to say about corporal punishment? To properly examine this question, let me present a venerable theological phrase, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" ("As the Church prays, the Church believes"). In other words, if you really want to know what the Church, the Mystical Body and extension into this world of Christ himself, has to say about something, look to the way she prays, or at the nature of the Sacraments.
How does the Church "pray about", or treat, sinful behavior? She employs the Sacrament of Reconciliation. When we do wrong, we go to our Mother, the Church, for forgiveness. She hears us, holds us, forgives us, and, finally, as penance for our sinfulness, she sends us to make amends and spend time in prayer, learning and discipleship at the feet of the Master.
The Church does not add to our suffering by physical punishment. By that same token, she does not believe in doing so to children. Sure, there have been periods in Church history when penance included corporal punishment of the most excruciating nature. The sad legacy of the Inquisition is testimony to this fact. Yet, as the Church grew in age, wisdom, and grace, she abandoned such practices for those which more closely modeled the ministry and commandments of Christ.
Modern Catholic scholars reflect this conviction when they say that this legacy of corporal punishment "... reflect[s] neither the spirit nor the methods Christ who said: 'Learn of Me, for I am meek and humble of heart'..." and that the Church should not "employ physical force to coerce the mind of man. . .Our only instruments in the domain of conscience must be reason, God's grace, human kindness and love.[9]"
The Church condemns any action which "violates the integrity of the human person, such as… attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity… [4]" The Church teaches that we must not resort to violence out of expediency. Consequences for wrongdoing must be "in conformity to the dignity of the human person [5]." The violence which is at the core of spanking makes it inherently offensive to the dignity of the human person.
There is nothing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which supports the right of parents to use corporal punishment. Even more, term “punishment” is not even used (curiously absent I would say!) in the section of church teaching that refers to parents’ “mission as educators” to “educate, guide, correct, instruct and discipline” their children through “word and example… cordial openness, dialog…” [1].
Corporal punishment remains a matter of prudential judgment for Catholics, but as the Church continues to reflect on this issue, she appears to be moving consistently–and internationally–toward opposing it. The position of the Church is to look for closeness, gentleness and firmness. And a beautiful way to express this is through the use of the parable of the prodigal son [2].
Using the example of the father in the parable of the prodigal son, Pope Francis says, "Fathers need to be patient. Sometimes you can do nothing other than wait; pray and wait with patience, gentleness, magnanimity, and mercy. A good father knows how to wait and how to forgive, from the bottom of his heart."[11]
I hope this can shed some light into those passages. I do want to thank you for sharing them with me. While I did not give them the required attention when you initially sent them to me, I am grateful for your sharing. This was a great opportunity to learn about what the Church says about this issue and also to reaffirm my position of no corporal punishment.
REFERENCES:
[1] Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae
[2] Luke 15, 11-32. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[3] Letter to the families, 1994. https://w2.vatican.va/content/
[4] Gaudium et Spes. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[6] http://nospank.net/popcak.htm
[7] http://aolff.org/spare-the-
[8] John 2, 15. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
[9] Gregory Popcak, Parenting with Grace: Catholic Parent's Guide to Raising Almost Perfect Kids.
[10] A Christian perspective on corporal punishment. http://nospank.net/popcak.htm
[11] Pope Francis, General audience 4 February 2015.
ADDENDUM:
The interpretation of the Bible is not all literal, and positions can shift over time. Catholic interpretations accept that the Bible is full of symbols and metaphors that are not meant to be taken literally.
The Church distinguishes between two senses of Scripture (CCC 115-116):
- The literal sense
- The meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis.
- following the rules of sound interpretation
- "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
- The spiritual sense
- Conveys the realities and events about God and his signs
- Can be further subdivided into:
- Allegorical sense,
- We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ
- e.g. The crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism
- Moral sense
- the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction"
- Anagogical sense.
- (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem
Take for example the case of slavery. The Church came to a gradual understanding that slavery was immoral, and moved from a stance of condoning to condemning slavery. In this case, the foundational principle was the idea that humanity is made in imago Dei, the image and likeness of God. That principle never changed; it was expanded to include enslaved peoples once it was understood that they were entirely human.
So yeah, the Church can change in teachings and practice... just look, for example, how the current Pope chooses to dress (humbly) compared to what tradition suggests.
Comments
Post a Comment