Also from Veith’s Cranach site is the story of the dungeon children.
Perhaps this will be enough to reinstitute the death penalty in Austria.
Josef Fritzl was apparently born too late. He would have fit in great with the Nazis, maybe even taught them a thing or two about the depths of human depravity, viciousness, and torture.
Planet Augsburg 
May 2, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I guess I’ve always thought that human depravity is overall the same at any time and place. The character of the society seems to muzzle or encourage it, but only to a degree.
I’m not sure what benefit the death penalty would bring to the case, it would not likely have prevented this from occurring (or would it? from what I just said), nor would it have brought these events to light sooner. Living, the perpetrators have an opportunity for repentance and salvation which they would not have dead.
On the other hand, if we had public hanging, it could be a wonderful spectacle. Or stonings would give the public a “hands on” opportunity to participate in the work of government.
May 2, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Important questions these . . .
Human depravity has had its peaks and valleys over the course of history. The 20th century seems to have been a valley (though we are not starting off too well here in the 21st). We seem to have outdone ourselves with new ways of killing and brutality, whether it is nazism, communism, Islamic terrorism, abortion, euthanasia, or Josef Fritzl’s particular brand of torture.
You say that the “character of the society seems to muzzle or encourage it” and I think that is right. Indeed, that is precisely what “society” or “civilization” is meant to do. As Publius (James Madison) once wrote:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Thus, the power of the sword has been granted to government for good reason. Government is necessary because of human sin. So too, government must be restrained because of human sin. The best way to work all this out is a subject to which millions of barrels of ink and countless minds have been dedicated over the last few thousand years.
We seem to have a good thing going right now, but 232 years is a pretty short period of time when all things are considered.
For the pretty much all of those thousands of years, capital punishment has been viewed as an important and necessary function of the state. Indeed, even among nations more thoroughly Christian than our own (at least in the sense of society’s consensus about Christ and who He is), capital punishment has always been a tool in the law and order tool box.
It is meant as a deterrence, though its value as such is directly proportional to how often it is administered. Accordingly, we have lost much of its deterrence value today.
It is of course a punishment. But, it is also a demonstration of what society believes to be important. If a society values life, it will punish the unjust taking of life swiftly and firmly. Killing someone found to have murdered is not a contradiction of those values. Indeed, it is a confirmation of those values.
You said that “Living, the perpetrators have an opportunity for repentance and salvation which they would not have dead.” Interestingly, the Christians who enforced the death penalty in the early days of this country saw it as having precisely that purpose.
Think of it as a sort of excommunication. The purpose is to demonstrate the unrepentant sin of the excommunicated and bring about repentance. So too, giving someone the death penalty was thought to be the best way to bring about precisely the sort of repentance you speak of. A condemned man would be very concerned about the state of his soul if he date with the gallows is set.
Sorry to go on so long. I have no trouble with capital punishment. I wish we used it more frequently. I think the world would be a better place if we did. It might not have deterred Mr. Fritzl, but to be sure, it would deter many thousands of other criminals and save lives.
May 2, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Capital punishment, especially when widely used, seems to put us in with an interesting of governments: China, North Korea, the Islamic states and the US are the main proponents of capital punishment.
I was serious about stoning. If we’re going to have the government do this job, it would be best to have the people vested in what it does.
Now here is something I have been puzzling about for a long time: non-prescriptive doctrines. It’s very nice that we have the two kingdoms, and practical in some sense, but the Bible spells out nothing to describe what a good government is (unless you say that a good government wields the sword a lot). I mean, we know it will promote peace and order with the people, but then the most totalitarian governments would be the most successful. Similarly, we as Christians are supposed to obey the government unless it means disobeying Christ, but clearly there are things one can do for government that one is proscribed from doing otherwise. Throw in a hypothetical bad government with hypothetical secretive motives and you end up with a real quagmire for Christians.
Other doctrines seem straightforward: the doctrine of vocation means do a good job at what you do, and so on. The two kingdom doctrine leaves us with quicksand.
May 2, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Yes, but France and Canada have abolished it! What to do? What to do? I never really found the “but, [insert X country] is [or is not] doing this, so we should [not] too.” argument to be persuasive. I prefer justifying or condemning a policy on the merits.
Not taking the bait on your “stoning” idea. One can be in favor of aggressive and robust law enforcement without having an affinity for posses or other forms of mob justice.
Luther promulgated the doctrine of two kingdoms because it is Biblical. I don’t really see how it leaves us with quicksand. Indeed, I think it solves many more problems created by a one kingdom – heaven on earth view, NOW.
Much of the grief caused by governments in the history of mankind has been the result of mixing these two kingdoms. It does not take too long for rulers who believe we can make heaven here on earth to start acting like God.
I do not think it is at all clear that totalitarian governments are the best for promoting peace and order. Indeed, I think the weight of authority (i.e., the history of the last 1000 years) is on the side of non-totalitarian governments being the more peaceful, orderly, and long-lived. Consider Britain’s constitutional monarchy and our own against the governments of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
An evil government can be a quagmire for Christians. Our record has been spotty at best. Consider the Christians of Germany in 1930s. They saw the rise of Nazism and persecution of the Jews and did nothing. Consider our record in tolerating 1.5MM abortions per year in this country. Our tax dollars at work. This can be a quagmire, but our duties are clear. We must stand for Christ.
May 2, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Come on, the stoning thing wasn’t bait. If you’re going to do something distasteful, you should do it yourself rather than delegating. In a constitutional way, of course, not mob justice. Fatten your own geese for fois gras. Kill the people you condemn to death, and so on. Don’t rid yourself of culpability for something that is acceptable.
If the doctrine is clear, then answer these serious questions: need I make any review of whom the government tells me to kill, as headsman, or am I to kill whomever it tells me to? May I lie or cheat on behalf of the government? May I have non-marital sex on behalf of the government? Should I inform per the requirements of the government? If the government told me to divorce my wife so that somebody else might have her, should I? From the point of view of a Christian I can say” don’t kill, don’t like, don’t cheat, don’t commit adultery, don’t divorce, and so on. Throw in the two kingdoms and I don’t know the answers. Do you?
All in love, of course. I’m pretty Lutheran. I want to know how my doctrines play out.
May 2, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I think this post was originally about that Austrian sicko. Here we are wading knee deep into Two Kingdoms. That’s the internet for you.
Your comments about stoning seem to betray a misunderstanding about the difference between a person acting within his office, exercising the authority invested in that office and someone acting on their own without any authority whatsoever.
Let’s take the headsman for example. He is the classic example of someone exercising the power of the sword on behalf of the state. A Christian headsman (yes, I believe there can be such a thing) needs to be confident that he is executing (no pun intended) his office appropriately. He needs to have confidence that the duties of his office contribute to the public good. He is not simply killing whoever he is told to kill.
He is part of an overall system that has checks and balances to ensure that the innocent go free and the guilty receive the punishment they are do. Indeed, he is merely carrying out the will of the jury that convicted and sentenced the criminal to death.
Of course, if he knows he is about to execute an innocent person, he must refrain. He must refrain, even if doing so would cause himself to be punished. Moreover, I think that if his confidence in that system is shaken, if he begins to believe that he is being asked to execute innocent people, he should also refrain. He may be wrong in fact about that, but he should still follow his conscience and refrain.
As for the other examples you throw out, determining how a Christian should act in each case can be difficult. I do not deny that. Forced divorce? Forced fornication or adultery? Bill Clinton could only wish for those duties of office. I would think the answer to those questions is “no” and I know of very few circumstances where such conduct would be required by a government entity outside of spy novels. Perhaps, James Bond would find it difficult to square his activities as a spymaster with his Christian duties.
Lying and cheating for your government probably happens all the time in the spygame (indeed, what could we say about the vocation of being an international spy?). But, if it is necessary for defense and safety of one’s country, wouldn’t it have the same sort license as killing would in a just war? In theory, I guess fornication could have the same license if it was necessary for the defense and safety of one’s country. But, when would that be?
These are all worthwhile and difficult questions. That does not mean there are not answers. The effort at sorting them out serves as a reminder to me to be thankful for grace.
May 2, 2008 at 10:02 pm
And in the end, we are saved by grace and not by our works, thanks be to God. And thank you for your patience.
[Last night, my wife heard me muttering “Lord, have mercy on me.” Her response “What have you been up to?”]