A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[Kei]

I fail to see how I’m creating a strawman argument when I asked a rhetorical question.

Precisely because it is rhetorical, meant to give a certain answer.

What reason(s) do you have for being against the death penalty? Do you consider the death penalty not merciful?

For one, the holy father said so in continuation with his predecessor St Pope JP II. Trying to understand their judgement, I see even legitimately spilled blood seems to sully us, as with the King David example. The Church also used to prohibit executioners from becoming priests, at least from what I’ve read. Culturally, people in general may not view justice as retributive, so that’s not good culturally. The chance of killing the wrong person is also something massive to consider, perhaps too chancey. And such.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Precisely because it is rhetorical, meant to give a certain answer.

However, I didn’t answer for anyone, nor did I present anyone else’s side of the argument.

Lunam_Meam:

What reason(s) do you have for being against the death penalty? Do you consider the death penalty not merciful?

For one, the holy father said so in continuation with his predecessor St Pope JP II. Trying to understand their judgement, I see even legitimately spilled blood seems to sully us, as with the King David example. The Church also used to prohibit executioners from becoming priests, at least from what I’ve read. Culturally, people in general may not view justice as retributive, so that’s not good culturally. The chance of killing the wrong person is also something massive to consider, perhaps too chancey. And such.

Okay. And, again, do you consider the death penalty not merciful?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Why are you posting like a broken record? Read what I wrote, if you are actually a human posting rather than a bot. Good evening.

You didn’t address why we should choose whom we show mercy to, thus I repeated myself. I didn’t ask you if the death penalty is permitted according to the Catechism.

 

[Kaninchen]

Not wanting to divert discussion but just a couple of technical points:

1. it would appear that biblical ‘stoning’ involved the two main witnesses to the offence throwing the individual off a two storey building and, if that failed to kill, the two witnesses were to drop a large boulder on him/her, if that failed, then everybody could join in - with stones; and
2. even before the time of Jesus, it had become practically rather difficult to get yourself executed under Jewish Law. Then the Romans turned up and they were really into the death penalty business.

 

[Bernoulli]

Jesus couldn’t have killed the adulterous woman, because Jesus didn’t have secular authority to execute. Even the Jewish leaders didn’t have it: The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” (John 18:31) The situation was a trick question staged by Jesus’ opponents.

 

[Kei]

do you consider the death penalty not merciful?

No, if done properly I would consider it merciful. Here are just four ways:

1. It gives them a certainty of their very impending death, prompting repentance.
2. If not repentant, it gives them less chance to add further sins to their soul
3. It is merciful for others, as it protects others (including criminals in prison) from the one who committed the capital offense.
4. It is merciful to the victims, who now know there is no way they will escape from prison and come after them

The thing to consider is which is better, it’s not that one way is just always bad, methinks. And the mind of the Church seems to be moving away from capital punishment, so I will opt for their judgment. In my country, which still has capital punishment, we hold them for DECADES before killing them, which is just awful in my opinion, and negates some of the benefits. We also may have a cultural defect in understanding retributive justice. And of course, you never want to punish someone so far for something they didn’t do (getting the wrong guy/gal).

 

[redcatholic]

I’ll point out that if you really think about it He was pro death penalty. He offered her a chance to repent. He didn’t change adultery to a non mortal sin. And what does mortal sin mean anyway. Death. Without the promise of new life.

 

[GEddie]

Of course, poison only worked if the condemned were cooperative, e.g. Socrates.

Most condemned (indeed most human beings) are nowhere nearly that philosophical about their own death.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Lunam_Meam]

No, if done properly I would consider it merciful. Here are just four ways:

1. It gives them a certainty of their very impending death, prompting repentance.
2. If not repentant, it gives them less chance to add further sins to their soul
3. It is merciful for others, as it protects others (including criminals in prison) from the one who committed the capital offense.
4. It is merciful to the victims, who now know there is no way they will escape from prison and come after them

The thing to consider is which is better, it’s not that one way is just always bad, methinks. And the mind of the Church seems to be moving away from capital punishment, so I will opt for their judgment. In my country, which still has capital punishment, we hold them for DECADES before killing them, which is just awful in my opinion, and negates some of the benefits. We also may have a cultural defect in understanding retributive justice. And of course, you never want to punish someone so far for something they didn’t do (getting the wrong guy/gal).

If fear of impending physical death, and/or eternal death of the soul prompts one to repentance, is it sincere or insincere? Can man always know like God? Fear is also known to drive people away from God.

If not sincerely repentant at the time of death, their death has robbed them of any chance to. One must bear in mind, ‘‘not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse.’’ It’s essential to have patient mercy, which gives souls the time to recover and fortify themselves.

To take another’s life into their own hands, one risks the possibility of being responsible for that soul dying as an innocent, or guilty in an insincere state of repentance, and/or robbed of the opportunity to reach sincere repentance and holiness.

Additionally, while one’s death may prevent further sins to their soul, it has caused others to add sins to their soul if they called for one’s death out of anger, or vengeance, for Jesus says whosoever is angry with their brother will be in danger of the judgment (Mat. 5:22), and vengeance is God’s (Rom. 12:19).

In conclusion, you have not shown how the death penalty can be merciful to the one sentenced to die, or others at least in the way that matters. Also, Jesus taught: “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? He made no distinction between sinners. Therefore, why should one pick and choose who should not receive mercy in the face of death?

"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’’ (Lk. 6:37)

 

[kapp19]

In conclusion, you have not shown how the death penalty can be merciful to the one sentenced to die, or others at least in the way that matters. Also, Jesus taught: “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? He made no distinction between sinners. Therefore, why should one pick and choose who should not receive mercy in the face of death?

The saints and scholars do not agree with you on the efficacy of CP rendering good contrition, so long as the condemned is treated rightly (which was Cardinal Dulles’ argument against CP in practice in the USA).

Moses was the meekest man of all the Earth (see the epilogue of Deuteronomy). He legislated CP, which commandments he received from the very same God Who became Incarnate. You must demonstrate that not using the law in this incident - which is full of many hidden complexities which you are not exploring - actually overturns the entire principle at work. That would imply that CP is actually unjust as an instance of the higher order of natural law - and that God had simply made special exceptions in the legislation of the Torah (like telling Abraham to kill Isaac - which would not have been sin). But that is quite a mountain to climb, especially given the NT’s complete silence on this, unlike, say, circumcision and dietary laws, or other ceremonial and ritual laws, or the minor judicial precepts such as the proper respect for the Sabbath… It’s not like those things at all. Then there are the natural law arguments, which you do not seem to be aware of, and deeper Scriptural arguments as well, in addition to the consensus of the saints, Doctors, popes, etc. throughout 20 centuries - except for a few moments ago when we allegedly discovered mercy in the Church.

States do not receive the same kinds of Divine moral precepts as private individuals do. States are not saved, individuals are saved. Functionaries of the State as such act with God’s own authority (in their proper sphere), and they can even bind the conscience in some cases over and above Divine precept, so long as Divine precept is not contradicted.

I sincerely suggest that you take up a real study of this important and deeply misunderstood topic before accusing good Catholics - and professional moralists (such as myself) - of not being merciful as you because they do not accept your reading of Scripture over and against the constant teaching of the Church, whatever Francis may have said in a CCC update (which itself can be read in many ways).

-K

 

[Lunam_Meam]

I sincerely suggest that you take up a real study of this important and deeply misunderstood topic before accusing good Catholics - and professional moralists (such as myself) - of not being merciful as you because they do not accept your reading of Scripture over and against the constant teaching of the Church, whatever Francis may have said in a CCC update (which itself can be read in many ways).

I haven’t needed to interpret Scripture I’ve quoted, as Jesus’s words and example speak for themselves.

"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’’ (Lk. 6:37)

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? Jesus made no distinction. Therefore, why should we choose who should not receive mercy in the face of death?

Regarding the adulterous woman, if Jesus killed her it would have been justice, but it would not have been mercy. By not condemning He gave that soul time, and possibility to arriving at repentance, and holiness, if she wished to reach them. Patient mercy gives souls time to recover and fortify themselves. And, one must bear in mind, ‘‘not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse.’’

We are instructed to follow Jesus’s example and be merciful, even when it’s justice to kill. Or, do you think we should not imitate His example in a death penalty case?

 

[kapp19]

By not condemning He gave that soul time, and possibility to arriving at repentance, and holiness, if she wished to reach them

That is His prerogative. States do not have the same perspective as God Himself in what a soul will do. Plus, you have ignored (conveniently) the knots indicated above… there is at least one trick going on in the episode. NOBODY was being executed under Mosaic law in Second Temple Judaism. It was basically a dead letter.

Or, do you think mankind should not imitate His example in a death penalty case?

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. So the comparison fails.

You refuse to admit that your reading of Scripture is at odds with some of the holiest and wisest people in the history of Christian thought. Will you please admit that you think you are more merciful, and/or wiser, than St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Pius V, Pope St. John Paul II, and many, many others?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

I haven’t needed to interpret Scripture I’ve quoted, as Jesus’s words and example speak for themselves.

"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’’ (Lk. 6:37)

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? Jesus made no distinction between sinners. Therefore, why should we choose what sinners should not receive mercy in the face of death?

Regarding the adulterous woman, if Jesus killed her it would have been justice, but it would not have been mercy. By not condemning He gave that soul time, and possibility to arriving at repentance, and holiness, if she wished to reach them. Patient mercy gives souls time to recover and fortify themselves. And, one must bear in mind, ‘‘not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse.’’

That is His prerogative. States do not have the same perspective as God Himself in what a soul will do.

So, that means states should enter God’s domain by killing? That means they should do what Jesus did not, thereby act against His teachings and example?

Lunam_Meam:

We are instructed to follow Jesus’s example and be merciful, even when it’s justice to kill. Or, do you think we should not imitate His example in a death penalty case?

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.

Are you saying we should follow Jesus’s example in a death penalty case, but cannot succeed?

You refuse to admit that your reading of Scripture is at odds with some of the holiest and wisest people in the history of Christian thought.

I haven’t needed to interpret Scripture I’ve quoted, as Jesus’s words and example speak for themselves. So, what you’re really saying is Jesus’s words are at odds with others.

Will you please admit that you think you are more merciful, and/or wiser, than St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Pius V, Pope St. John Paul II, and many, many others?

I’ve been quoting Jesus’s words and showing His example, and without interpretation as Jesus’s words and example speak for themselves. So, what you’re really asking for is Jesus to admit He’s more merciful and/or wiser than others.

 

[kapp19]

So, that means states should enter God’s domain by killing?

Um, no, they already are acting on God’s behalf - as Scripture indicates abundantly… including in the NT, INCLUDING RELATING TO CP… in the same chapter of Romans (13) you were trying to use in the other thread to indicate the contrary.

That means they should do what Jesus did not, thereby act against His teachings and example?

Nope.

Are you saying we should, but cannot imitate His example in a death penalty case?

No.

I haven’t needed to interpret Scripture I’ve quoted, as Jesus’s words and example speak for themselves. So, what you’re saying is Jesus’s words are at odds with others.

Sorry, that is nonsense. You are saying, “Because Jesus didn’t kill someone in this case, it means that all capital punishment is bad.” That is a complete non sequitur, let alone a “reading” of Scripture. If you were just presenting the text of Scripture, there would not be all the commentary you’re giving.

I’m quoting Jesus’s words and example. So, what you’re really asking is for Jesus to admit He’s more merciful and/or wiser than others.

See above.

No answer to my question? Why should I listen to you over Pius V - who had priests beheaded for sodomy?

Look I think you mean well but do not have even the basics. I highly, highly recommend a serious dive into the Tradition on this point. Bellarmine, for what it’s worth, thought this to be a matter of heresy. Cf. the confession of Faith of the reconciliation of the Waldensian heretics. It is serious stuff we are dealing with - and until just a moment ago, everyone was on the same page. I do not think that Francis discovered mercy for the first time, nor do I think that your interpretation of the mercy of Christ vis-a-vis justice is particularly insightful over and against the whole tradition, which you do not seem to have given much consideration to.

God bless you…
-K

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Um, no, they already are acting on God’s behalf - as Scripture indicates abundantly… including in the NT, INCLUDING RELATING TO CP… in the same chapter of Romans (13)…

“For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Rom. 13:9), which is the second greatest commandment (Mat. 22:39), and love is the fulfilling of the Law (Rom. 13:10).

"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’’ (Lk. 6:37)

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? Jesus made no distinction. Therefore, why should we choose who should not receive mercy in the face of death?

Lunam_Meam:

kapp19:

Lunam_Meam:

We are instructed to follow Jesus’s example and be merciful, even when it’s justice to kill. Or, do you think we should not imitate His example in a death penalty case?

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world.

Are you saying we should follow Jesus’s example in a death penalty case, but cannot succeed?

No.

Are you saying we shouldn’t follow Jesus’s example in a death penalty case?

Lunam_Meam:

I haven’t needed to interpret Scripture I’ve quoted, as Jesus’s words and example speak for themselves. So, what you’re really saying is Jesus’s words are at odds with others.

I’ve been quoting Jesus’s words and showing His example, and without interpretation as Jesus’s words and example speak for themselves. So, what you’re really asking for is Jesus to admit He’s more merciful and/or wiser than others.

Sorry, that is nonsense. You are saying, “Because Jesus didn’t kill someone in this case, it means that all capital punishment is bad.” That is a complete non sequitur, let alone a “reading” of Scripture. If you were just presenting the text of Scripture, there would not be all the commentary you’re giving.

No, it’s not nonsense. And, what I’ve actually been saying is we are instructed to follow Jesus’s teachings and example of mercy, even in death penalty cases where its justice to kill. Additionally, my commentary has not been interpretation of the Scripture I’ve quoted.

 

[Vico]

…
Therefore, no matter the situation in a death penalty case, do you say mankind should or shouldn’t follow Jesus’s example of mercy?

With regard to sin, a person has only until death to repent before any condemnation. Even so, sin does have an effect on the community beyond the guilt and attachment to sin. Sinners are corrected with “go and sin no more”.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

With regard to sin, a person has only until death to repent before any condemnation. Even so, sin does have an effect on the community beyond the guilt and attachment to sin. Sinners are corrected with “go and sin no more”.

I wasn’t saying otherwise.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

With regard to sin, a person has only until death to repent before any condemnation. Even so, sin does have an effect on the community beyond the guilt and attachment to sin. Sinners are corrected with “go and sin no more”.

I wasn’t saying otherwise.

Death penalty may be given to those with antisocial personality disorder that commit crime, and where the disorder is not the cause of actual sin.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Death penalty may be given to those with antisocial personality disorder that commit crime, and wher the disorder is not the cause of actual sin.

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? Jesus made no distinction.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Death penalty may be given to those with antisocial personality disorder that commit crime, and wher the disorder is not the cause of actual sin.

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? Jesus made no distinction.

The virtue of justice is “the constant and permanent determination to give everyone his or her rightful due” 1. Compared with charity, justice essentially consists in the distinction between a person and neighbor rather than on the union existing between them by loving the neighbor as another self. Mercy is a disposition to be kind, and to pray for mercy is to pray for healing. Sometimes mercy, to bring about healing, requires carrying out justice, although there may be more tolerance.

1Modern Catholic Dictionary, Justice