A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[Lunam_Meam]

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

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

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 teachings and example of mercy, even in death penalty cases where its justice to kill.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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

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

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 teachings and example of mercy, even in death penalty cases where its justice to kill.

Why do you say killing her would be justice? That is not what Jesus taught justice is.

Matthew 5

38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:

Luke 11

42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Hebrews 10

30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

 

[Bernoulli]

Regarding the adulterous woman, if Jesus killed her it would have been justice.

No, it wouldn’t. Jesus did not have secular authority to carry out death penalty. 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)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Why do you say killing her would be justice? That is not what Jesus taught justice is.

Jesus said those without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved her because not one lapidator could be found. Jesus could have stoned her, He was without sin, and it would’ve been justice according to the Law, but He chose to be merciful. 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 teachings and example of mercy, even in death penalty cases where its justice to kill.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Why do you say killing her would be justice? That is not what Jesus taught justice is.

Jesus said those without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved her because not one lapidator could be found. Jesus could have stoned her, He was without sin, and it would’ve been justice according to the Law, but He chose to be merciful. 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 teachings and example of mercy, even in death penalty cases where its justice to kill.

You are quoting Poem of the Man God 493.

I agree with what you posted, but note that the death penalty was the maximum penalty for various crimes under the Mosaic Law, but not mandatory.

John 13

34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Catechism

1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

I agree with what you posted, but note that the death penalty was the maximum penalty for various crimes under the Mosaic Law, but not mandatory.

John 13

34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

The death penalty is still just of Jesus to carry out if He so chooses, and the rest of your post just seems to be more of what I was already saying.

 

[Ender]

Consider the following death penalty case: the adulterous woman (Jn. 8:1-11). Would you have wanted Jesus to kill her? It would’ve been justice, because He could’ve killed her, but it wouldn’t have been mercy.

Where to begin…?

Jesus had no authority to kill her, so it would not have been justice had he done so, therefore it was not an act of mercy not to have done so.

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

Given that this was a capital offense (at the time), and the woman received no punishment at all, if “the words speak for themselves” it seems that what they are saying is that all punishment is wrong and the example of mercy here is to abolish it altogether. What is wrong with this interpretation?

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.

No one has the ability to destroy another person’s chance of salvation.

…one should not forget that no human sentence finally and definitively settles the fate of a man, but only the judgment of God, both for single acts and for those of a lifetime. (Pius XII)

"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)

These words are addressed to the individual; the duties of the state are very different.

For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis… (St. Bellarmine)

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

The authority of the State comes from God…

…from St. Augustine, who says, “Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God (St. Bellarmine)

…as does the authority to execute criminals.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

The death penalty is still just of Jesus to carry out if He so chooses…

A number of people have pointed out that this is flatly wrong. Jesus had no such authority, and it would have been a grave sin for him to have killed that woman.

‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ (Augustine)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

…NOBODY was being executed under Mosaic law in Second Temple Judaism. It was basically a dead letter.

St. Stephen was stoned to death in 36 AD, which was during Second Temple Judaism (Acts. 7:54-59)

 

[Kaninchen]

St. Stephen was stoned to death in 36 AD, which was during Second Temple Judaism

Whether he was, or not, by legend a Sanhedrin was regarded as murderous if there was an execution every several years.

 

[anon90190422]

Jesus did not condemn capital punishment for adultery per se, in fact he commanded it of Moses. This is not a passage on the morality of the death penalty. Jesus was demonstrated the culpability of all under the Law and showing his mercy and power to forgive sins. Civil societies should continue to use the death penalty at least for murder. It is interesting that the Good Thief recognized his punishment was just, and Jesus did not rebuke him. Also the Church has traditionally seen the death penalty as acceptable for grievous crimes, including heresy. Pope Leo X condemned the error of Martin Luther that “it is contrary to the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned”. In addition the entire Tradition and Magisterium of the Church, along with the common opinion of theologians supports the death penalty. This means that a Catholic cannot reject the death penalty per se, because it was taught not only Scripture, but it is also part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, as a doctrine that is held by all as true.

 

[Kei]

Pope Leo X condemned the error of Martin Luther that “it is contrary to the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned”

Technically this was just one of multiple statements that were considered, perhaps among other things, as “either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be”
It doesn’t specify where in the list the statement is. There’s a big difference between being completely false and heretical and being “seductive of simple minds” or “offensive to pious ears”. It could sound, to simple or pious ears, like Luther is denying that heretics could go to Hell or something similar, even if that wasn’t his intent.

But I agree, I think a Catholic who would try to deny capital punishment as being morally licit in principle would have a very hard time.

 

[kapp19]

St. Stephen was stoned to death in 36 AD, which was during Second Temple Judaism (Acts. 7:54-59)

Yes - it was quite extraordinary.

Look, you’ve not bothered to address the really big issues that have been brought forward. So I don’t know what else to say. It is just not Catholic doctrine that you are espousing. I can assure you of that. You will want to study the issue more deeply before trying to convince people that you have figured out mercy better than everyone else in 2000 years… You could start with Prof. Feser’s book on the subject, it is now the standard text for this discussion.

Cheers…
-K

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Consider the following death penalty case: the adulterous woman (Jn. 8:1-11). Would you have wanted Jesus to kill her? It would’ve been justice, because He could’ve killed her, but it wouldn’t have been mercy. He chose to be merciful, and in doing so gave that soul time, and possibility to arriving at repentance, and holiness, if she wished to reach them. He led by example the following teaching: “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36). Merciful to whom? He made no distinction between sinners.

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

Possibly reading Matthew 22:15-22 would allow for properly situating the scriptural context of John 8:1-11? Both cases – whether the lawful payment of taxes or the appropriate exercise of the death penalty – clearly demonstrate these particular issues were merely utilized as pretexts in bad faith for attempting to discredit Yeshua ben Yosef (cf. Matthew 22:15; John 8:6). Are you aware the right of enforcing the ius gladii was strictly reserved to the Roman prefect for the Province of Judea in the time of Yeshua’s ministry? Hence the moral dilemma for this historical equivalent of a first-century “lynching”: (1) choosing obedience to the Mosaic Law by pronouncing the just stoning of the adulteress would most likely result in being denounced to the Roman authorities for incitement to murder; or (2) conversely deciding to follow an edict of Caesar by mercifully releasing the adulteress would render him guilty of flouting the Mosaic Law.
Rather than objectively focusing on the legal standing and substantive merits for imposing the death penalty, Yeshua demands whether the inner tribunal of their own consciences even allows the hypocritical accusers to sit in worthy judgment (nota bene: the partner of the adulteress taken in flagrante delicto is never presented before him for a concurrent verdict). Far from abrogating the use of capital punishment, seems this pericope resolutely illustrates Yeshua was simply emphasizing the indispensable prerequisite of prosecutors free from malice and impartial executioners?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Jesus had no authority to kill her, so it would not have been justice had he done so, therefore it was not an act of mercy not to have done so.

Jesus said those without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, because no one was without sin. So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved her because not one lapidator could be found. Jesus could have stoned her, He was without sin, and it would’ve been justice according to the Law, but He chose to be merciful.

It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

Given that this was a capital offense (at the time), and the woman received no punishment at all, if “ the words speak for themselves ” it seems that what they are saying is that all punishment is wrong and the example of mercy here is to abolish it altogether.

The adulterous woman wasn’t punished by death in that moment, because Jesus chose to give 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. Not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse. Hopefully, she took advantage of the opportunity, and heeded His words “go and sin no more”. Depending on how she chose to live her life from that moment on, when she faced God He would’ve executed justice accordingly.

…one should not forget that no human sentence finally and definitively settles the fate of a man, but only the judgment of God, both for single acts and for those of a lifetime. (Pius XII)

I agree. I was referring to Jesus speaking on repentance and holiness, and how He commands us to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Well, when one takes another’s life they’re robbing them of the opportunity to reach sincere repentance and holiness in this life.

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)

The state is made up of individuals under God’s authority, and are more liable to Him. Not every authority figure always acts in accordance with God, nor with perfect justice.

The authority of the State comes from God…

…as does the authority to execute criminals.

They also have the authority to show mercy.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

kapp19:

…NOBODY was being executed under Mosaic law in Second Temple Judaism. It was basically a dead letter.

St. Stephen was stoned to death in 36 AD, which was during Second Temple Judaism (Acts. 7:54-59)

Look, you’ve not bothered to address the really big issues that have been brought forward. So I don’t know what else to say. It is just not Catholic doctrine that you are espousing. I can assure you of that. You will want to study the issue more deeply before trying to convince people that you have figured out mercy better than everyone else in 2000 years… You could start with Prof. Feser’s book on the subject, it is now the standard text for this discussion.

Cheers…
-K

Well, I never said the death penalty is bad, not justice, or not the right of x, but I did quote Jesus’s teachings on love and mercy, as well as reference His act of mercy in a death penalty case where it would’ve been justice to kill the accused.

 

[Ender]

The adulterous woman wasn’t punished by death in that moment , because Jesus chose to give that soul time, and possibility to arriving at repentance, and holiness, if she wished to reach them.

This doesn’t respond to the question: since the woman received no punishment at all why shouldn’t we interpret that to mean it is punishment itself rather than just capital punishment that should be eliminated?

Well, when one takes another’s life they’re robbing them of the opportunity to reach sincere repentance and holiness in this life.

They’re not being “robbed” of anything. They are repaying a debt they incurred through their own deliberate choices.

Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live. (Pius XII)

The state is made up of individuals under God’s authority, and are more liable to Him.

No, this completely misses the distinction. The state is not merely a collection of individuals; it has its own unique set of rights and duties and they are very different than those of individuals, one of the most significant is that the individual is forbidden to avenge offenses while the state is obligated to do so.

CCC 2266: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties…”

It is irrelevant to point to what the individual should do when discussing what the State should do.

They also have the authority to show mercy.

Yes, where it is appropriate to do so, which assuredly is not without exception.

…this movement of the mind (viz. mercy) obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded. (Augustine)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

This doesn’t respond to the question: since the woman received no punishment at all why shouldn’t we interpret that to mean it is punishment itself rather than just capital punishment that should be eliminated?

I never said we should interpret Jesus’s act of mercy towards her to mean capital punishment should be eliminated. Therefore, that question is better suited for someone who does.

What I have said is 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.

They are repaying a debt they incurred through their own deliberate choices.

Jesus’s death paid the debt of sinners of the past, present, and future. That is why He taught in word, and in deed about showing charity and mercy towards others, as He had shown to us. In addition to this, we are called to repentance, holiness, and perfection in this life, but one is robbed of these opportunities when they are killed, whether according to the law, or against the law.

No, this completely misses the distinction. The state is not merely a collection of individuals; it has its own unique set of rights and duties and they are very different than those of individuals, one of the most significant is that the individual is forbidden to avenge offenses while the state is obligated to do so.

CCC 2266: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties…”

It is irrelevant to point to what the individual should do when discussing what the State should do.

No, it is still relevant when it is humanity coming up with what penalties and laws are created, and when they can dispense justice or mercy, like when a sovereign, or judge does it. All of them are liable to God.

Yes, where it is appropriate to do so, which assuredly is not without exception.

…this movement of the mind (viz. mercy) obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded. (Augustine)

God the Father sending Jesus to die for all mankind, and Jesus willfully dying for all mankind were acts of mercy. Therefore, how can any of us show mercy to anything less than all mankind?

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Lk. 6:36)

 

[kapp19]

Again I am seeing much more than simply presenting the text, as you say you are doing.

It’s a very attractive canard to say mercy over justice, yet a canard it is… as if such things were ever opposed. Sometimes a judge might have a true equitable option between CP and exile or a life sentence… okay. But sometimes not. And again, you seem to be downplaying the powerful aid of knowing when and where and how you will die… it’s more helpful than exile or life in a bad environment, at least. Saints to consider would include Catherine of Siena and Joseph Cafasso, and on the other side, Andreas of Wouters!

I think the problems are insurmountable and are being left largely unaddressed. So I recommend once more a reflection on the alleged lack of mercy and wisdom among the great popes and saints and moralists, and a solid study of the issue, starting with the text of Prof. Feser. That’s what I can say…

-K

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Well, I never said the death penalty is bad, not justice, nor not the right of x, but I did quote Jesus’s teachings on love and mercy, as well as reference His act of mercy in a death penalty case where it would’ve been justice to kill the accused.

Again, I am seeing much more than simply presenting the text, as you say you are doing.

Again, nothing beyond what I just said, as well as my reminding we are called to follow Jesus’s teachings and example.

 

[godisgood77]

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

We should follow Jesus… The Church has acknowledged a development of its doctrine on capital punishment and made the death penalty inadmissible… a move closer to the mercy of Jesus.