A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[Ender]

Ender:

We thus have the situation where Scripture approves of it and the Gospel disapproves of it

That is an inaccurate statement and wrongly interprets Pope Francis.

Francis said capital punishment “is per se contrary to the Gospel”. Scripture, however, not only recognizes it as legitimate, but has often commanded its use. In what possible sense can it be said that the Gospel does not contradict Scripture (assuming Francis is correct)? How can Scripture require/permit something the Gospel forbids?

 

[Montrose]

Francis said capital punishment “ is per se contrary to the Gospel ”. Scripture, however, not only recognizes it as legitimate, but has often commanded its use. In what possible sense can it be said that the Gospel does not contradict Scripture (assuming Francis is correct)? How can Scripture require/permit something the Gospel forbids?

The Gospel IS Scripture.

 

[o_mlly]

How can Scripture require/permit something the Gospel forbids?

Your argument would give primacy to the Old Testament but that is not true:
“This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament” (St. Augustine).

 

[sealabeag]

The argument here will be that the old testament permits things the Gospels do not. That’s not my argument, but it’s what will be raised. The Church Fathers took their support for the death penalty, not from the old testament, but from the Scriptures, old and new, Gospels included. This argument that some are trying to raise in this thread, which is, in my opinion, an exercise in pedantics, that the death penalty does not find direct support in the Gospels, and therefore it is “contrary to the Gospels” is so illogical - the clear meaning of such an statement would be that the death penalty is therefore contrary to the teachings of Christ, and therefore Christianity, and therefore immoral or evil, and therefore wrong, and therefore the Church has been wrong for 2000 years.

 

[o_mlly]

This argument that some are trying to raise in this thread, which is, in my opinion, an exercise in pedantics, that the death penalty does not find direct support in the Gospels, and therefore it is “contrary to the Gospels” is so illogical

Hopefully, you do not fully understand the meaning of “pedantic”. A practicing Catholic would not label the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff as “pedantic”.

 

[MNathaniel]

sealabeag:

This argument that some are trying to raise in this thread, which is, in my opinion, an exercise in pedantics, that the death penalty does not find direct support in the Gospels, and therefore it is “contrary to the Gospels” is so illogical

Hopefully, you do not fully understand the meaning of “pedantic”. A practicing Catholic would not label the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff as “pedantic”.

What!!? Pope Francis has joined CAF in its final days? He’s in this thread?? Where?!



Exciting times.

 

[o_mlly]

Pope Francis has joined CAF in its final days?

Unlike some who prefer to hide their identity, the Pope does not.

Hmmmm … This user’s public profile is hidden. Got something you’d rather hide?

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

Pope Francis has joined CAF in its final days?

Unlike some who prefer to hide their identity, the Pope does not.

Hmmmm … This user’s public profile is hidden. Got something you’d rather hide?

Lol what?

 

[o_mlly]

The preferred method to manage internet trolls is to ignore them.

 

[MNathaniel]

The preferred method to manage internet trolls is to ignore them.

Are you… are you self-identifying?

That’s a fresh approach, I guess.

 

[sealabeag]

I was very clearly speaking about certain users in this thread, not Pope Francis. I begin to question your sincerity. I won’t be replying to any further replies by you. God bless you.

 

[o_mlly]

I was very clearly speaking about certain users in this thread, not Pope Francis.

Really? Yet we have this from you:

what do you make of this address by Pope Francis in which he speaks on the death penalty:

Comments on the death penalty begin about halfway down. I find myself disagreeing with most of it … The Holy Father actually says this: “It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel

Then, in direct contradiction to the Pope, you write:

that for ~2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel

When challenged to support this outrageous claim, you danced and dodged and then empty handed departed the thread …

… I’m out, this is a most unpleasant exchange

… only to come back with still nothing in support of your claim …

I won’t be replying to any further replies by you.

Let’s hope this time you really mean it.

I begin to question your sincerity.

Perhaps you should begin to question your honesty in our exchange.

 

[sealabeag]

I really shouldn’t but this is really my last time taking the bait… The comment in which I stated that I was clearly referring to users in this thread and not to Pope Francis was an entirely different comment to the one in your second quote, talking about two entirely different things.
My statement in your next quote, if in direct contradiction to Pope Francis, in your opinion, is simply a reassertion of Church teaching for 2000 years. You can take that issue up with the Catholic Church, not me.
I’m beginning to believe you to be genuinely a troll.
I regret re-engaging. I’m 100% out now.
All the best.

 

[o_mlly]

My statement in your next quote, if in direct contradiction to Pope Francis, in your opinion …

In my opinion? No, rather, in fact:

Pope Francis: "It [death penalty] is per se contrary to the Gospel"
sealabeag: “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”

I really shouldn’t …

Yes, you’re spot on there. Not so much elsewhere in this thread.

It is not trolling in an exchange to request someone back up a claim. It is dishonest to suggest one who does request such support is insincere or trolling. Redeem yourself: either back up your claim against the explicit words of Pope Francis or withdraw it.

 

[Ender]

Your argument would give primacy to the Old Testament but that is not true:

St Paul assumed its legitimacy in several places (Acts 25:11, and 28:18; Heb 10:28). It is also explicitly sanctioned in Rev 13:10. Nor is it a question of giving primacy to the Old Testament, but simply of including it as part of Scripture, or shall we denounce it altogether? There is in fact nothing that directly rejects capital punishment in the New Testament.

The argument here will be that the old testament permits things the Gospels do not.

Yes, it is an approach that discards the Old Testament wherever it is unhelpful.

 

[o_mlly]

St Paul assumed its legitimacy in several places (Acts 25:11, and 28:18; Heb 10:28). It is also explicitly sanctioned in Rev 13:10. Nor is it a question of giving primacy to the Old Testament, but simply of including it as part of Scripture, or shall we denounce it altogether? There is in fact nothing that directly rejects capital punishment in the New Testament.

The citations are not from the gospels.

As to the citations themselves, acknowledging that capital punishment was a possibility is not an affirmation of its legitimacy.

Nor is it a question of giving primacy to the Old Testament, but simply of including it as part of Scripture, or shall we denounce it altogether?

No. But we acknowledge the OT books are incomplete and temporary.

Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy (DEI VERBUM).

 

[Lunam_Meam]

“Consistency” is my middle name, sir…

You’re not consistent by changing the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ understanding of the Mosaic Law on adultery, and their intention behind attempting to accuse Jesus in such a case, after my every counter-argument:

(i) “If Jesus said “let her go”, then they’d say “you don’t follow the Mosaic law!”, and if He said “let her be punished”, they’d say “you’re not merciful!”. Jesus’ response finds a middle answer.”

(ii) "If Jesus said “apply the punishment”, they could have said, “see! he doesn’t know the Law! The Law requires the presence of the man who committed adultery, and this Jesus guy condemned illegally!”

(iii) “…the Pharisees’ own words betray their twisting of Mosaic law. Does the law “command [them] to stone such women”? No, it doesn’t. It commands them to stone both of the offenders . So, they’re clearly misstating the law, in the hopes of trapping Jesus.”

This is your latest argument:

(iv) “If Jesus makes a claim about the law, then they’re still able to make the counter-claim that Jesus doesn’t know the law Himself. And, since they’re the interpreters of the law, they win on that claim. See? That falls right into their trap. So, instead, Jesus takes a different tack – one which denies them the ability to claim victory on either horn of the dilemma.”

Your new interpretation of the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ plan seems to leave out the adulterer at all. And, if they wanted to accuse Jesus, wouldn’t they still be able to say He doesn’t know the Law on adultery, since they can just interpret Jesus’s addressing the witnesses, and telling those without sin should cast the first stone at the adulteress to be unlawful and wrong, and get Him in trouble? If they can say any claim Jesus makes is “wrong”, then why not say His “sentence” is wrong, and against the Law on adultery as well? Even if you are still arguing the Law on adultery says the adulterer must be sentenced to death, and/or killed at the same time/location as the adulteress, then nothing about what Jesus did should’ve changed that, and they should have told Jesus that His judgement was wrong, because the man isn’t there…

 

[mythbuster1]

Yes, it is sincere for a man to repent out of genuine fear of eternal damnation. The man who seeks Baptism/Confession because he knows he is about to die and does not want to meet God unprepared does so validly and is validly absolved thereby, even if fear of Hell or fear of losing Heaven is all he can muster. He may have to go to Purgatory (there are plenary indulgences available in the hour of death, but they require the disposition of having no attachment to sin), but he will be saved.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Yes, it is sincere for a man to repent out of genuine fear of eternal damnation. The man who seeks Baptism/Confession because he knows he is about to die and does not want to meet God unprepared does so validly and is validly absolved thereby, even if fear of Hell or fear of losing Heaven is all he can muster. He may have to go to Purgatory (there are plenary indulgences available in the hour of death, but they require the disposition of having no attachment to sin), but he will be saved.

People do not always repent with sincerity. My point is, man is called to charity, repentance, holiness, and perfection in this life as well, but one is robbed of these opportunities when they are killed, whether according to the law, or against the law. We should follow Jesus’s example by choosing mercy in a death penalty case, even when its justice to kill. Patient mercy gives souls time to recover and fortify themselves. Not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse.

 

[mythbuster1]

And that is why those who are condemned to death are permitted the opportunity to receive Baptism/Confession and the Eucharist right before being put to death, so that they will die with their sins pardoned and their souls fortified. In the case of death by lethal injection (which I oppose as a perversion of medicine, but it is practiced nevertheless), I would even support the priest accompanying the condemned into the death chamber and administering the Anointing of the Sick after the deadly poison has been administered, as it takes several minutes for the poison to kill the condemned.