“Now, in order that rulers and governors of states may weigh cases of this type more accurately, I will prove by other arguments that it is not lawful to kill or inflict harm on a large or even a small number of innocent persons in order that a few innocent persons may be rescued from death, and that the ruler or governor who does or permits [such things] commits a mortal sin and is bound to restitution.
“In the first place, this is proved to be a sin because it is the direct killing of an innocent person. Therefore it is a mortal sin. In this, moreover, many persons who do not deserve such treatment are killed or are afflicted with harm, as is evident from what has been said. Therefore such a ruler commits a mortal sin.
“The second argument is that this deed is wicked and displeasing in God’s eyes, and no different at all, in this respect, from the sacrifice of Cain or the vow of Jephthah, who sacrificed his daughter. Augustine affirms that [Jephthan] acted violently and cruelly. A similar act was committed by Agamemnon, whom because of a vow, sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia to Diana. Tullius [Cicero] relates and censures this deed in book 3 of his Offices.
“The third argument is that a particular deed is wicked and imprudent when it is offered to God without the due circumstances in a place and time and by acts that are not pleasing to God. For God does not delight in the suffering of the innocent and harmless. To kill them is a greater sin than that which pagans commit in sacrificing innocent persons. These men sacrifice thirty or a hundred or a thousand persons every year out of probable ignorance (as I shall explain later), whereas the soldiers waging war for this reason in one day kill ten thousand innocent persons, with great loss to their souls. Inasmuch as the soldiers have been instructed in Christ’s teaching, they ought to be aware that innocent persons must be spared. Hence they do not rightly distinguish, as Augustine said in reference to Cain. Therefore they are guilty before God of a most serious crime, and worthy of eternal damnation.”
–Bartolome de Las Casas, In Defense of the Indians. trans. Stafford Poole, C.M. (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois Press, 1992), 204-5.
“In those provinces where unbelievers eat human flesh and sacrifice innocent persons, only a few persons commit these crimes, whereas innumerablepersons are not guilty of them, and moreover do not participate in these acts in any way. And since we ought not to endanger a large number of innocent persons in order to free a few persons who are also innocent, it follows that neither the Church nor any ruler or other member of the Church ought to wage such a war, since they would not be doing this under the pretext of defending their kingdoms, which are far removed from the realms of the unbelievers, but merely under the pretext of freeing innocent persons when, in fact, a countless multitude of innocent persons would be annihilated under this pretext. Moreover this does not militate against what has been determined previously by our argument, since, according to judicial authority, that whole state is not, and should not be presumed to be hostile or inimical, but rather innocent and friendly.”
ibid., 207.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In