A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[LawyerForLife]

Yes. Yes we are.

Leaving aside the question of whether the death penalty is morally permissible, certainly JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis squarely reject your view that it’s mandatory, as does the Catechism.

Respectfully, your view would suggest that the Church has been in heresy ever since Evangelium Vitae.

 

[LawyerForLife]

By that logic, your view would suggest that the Church was in heresy for nearly 2,000 years.

I am not accusing anybody of heresy. I simply believe that the last few Popes have been wrong on this point. When you compare their views against what the Church taught and believed for almost 2,000 years before JPII, you can either believe that the Church was in error for all that time, or that the last few Popes have simply been wrong on this matter.

I’m not aware of any point at which the Church authoritatively taught that the death penalty was MANDATORY for murderers and that the civil authorities are morally obligated to impose it.

Acceptance of the Church’s current teaching – which strongly discourages use of the death penalty – doesn’t require rejection of anything it authoritatively taught before (which is to say, that the death penalty isn’t intrinsically evil, NOT that it’s morally obligatory).

The hang-em-all view that you espouse, by contrast, has never been taught by the Church.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

But God commands us to have laws punishing murderers with death. He gives the same law to Noah, Moses, and Paul.

That doesn’t mean mercy can’t, or shouldn’t be shown. Mercy was shown to Cain, King David, Moses, Paul, etc, and God commands us to be merciful too (Lk. 6:36), which is an act of charity, or love. To love one’s neighbor is the second greatest commandment (Mat. 22:39), and one who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the law (Rom. 13:8)

 

[BT3241]

There was no Government they were an occupied nation a Roman invasion. Dictators ruled.

 

[LawyerForLife]

If you were to read the current teaching as definitively prohibiting the death penalty I would agree with you. But it only discourages the death penalty. That strong discouragement is “doctrine” even though you are not absolutely morally obliged to assent to it – as some of the posters here do not.

 

[Ender]

I’m not aware of any point at which the Church authoritatively taught that the death penalty was MANDATORY for murderers and that the civil authorities are morally obligated to impose it.

This is true, but it doesn’t address the real question. The church has always acknowledged that circumstances could make the use of capital punishment inappropriate in certain situation, so of course she never taught its use was mandatory. She did, however, teach that, excepting those situations, it ought to be used.

That shouldn’t be surprising. She teaches today that it is mandatory to apply a punishment with a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime (exceptions noted); that’s what makes the punishment just. Given that death is a commensurate and just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder, what is the moral argument against applying it?

It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine, De Laicis ch 13)

If you were to read the current teaching as definitively prohibiting the death penalty I would agree with you. But it only discourages the death penalty. That strong discouragement is “doctrine” even though you are not absolutely morally obliged to assent to it – as some of the posters here do not.

We are obligated to assent to doctrine. If we are not obligated to assent to the “current teaching” it can only be because it is not doctrine, but rather prudential judgment, to which we have no obligation to assent.

 

[sealabeag]

@Ender A couple of questions: How do you view the CDF’s document on this - do you find anything there that would suggest that this is more than a prudential judgement and closer to magisterial teaching?
And secondly, the most common argument I’ve seen regarding this is: “The death penalty used to be a necessary evil but nowadays we have more secure prisons etc. rendering the death penalty unnecessary and unjust”.
Personally I disagree with the above argument, and my view is that the security of prisons hasn’t that much to do with the morality of the death penalty - either it is moral or not. And I think that a life imprisonment is no more merciful than death.
But I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Also, what do you make of this address by Pope Francis in which he speaks on the death penalty:http://www.vatican.va/content/franc...20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html

Comments on the death penalty begin about halfway down. I find myself disagreeing with most of it and don’t know how to feel about that as a Catholic. 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, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator”

 

[Gorgias]

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

There are already 95 responses. I read through about 20 of them, and didn’t see a particular response that I was hoping to find. If someone subsequently has already answered, then my apologies.

My response:

• Jesus wouldn’t have “killed her.”
• It was another example of a ‘trap’ question. 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.
• The problem with the dilemma, as posed, is that there should have been a partner who was brought in the deliberation of the ‘crime.’ In the absence of a man who was brought alongside her, there’s a serious problem with the attempt to bring this as an application of Mosaic law.

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. Jesus’ example is “don’t try to use misapplications of religious law to cast aspersions on religious leaders.” We should absolutely not attempt to do that.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

• Jesus wouldn’t have “killed her.”

He could’ve.

• It was another example of a ‘trap’ question. 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.

Yes, if He condemned her it wouldn’t have been mercy, rather justice.

• The problem with the dilemma, as posed, is that there should have been a partner who was brought in the deliberation of the ‘crime.’ In the absence of a man who was brought alongside her, there’s a serious problem with the attempt to bring this as an application of Mosaic law.

According to the Mosaic Law, both the adulterer and adulteress should be put to death. That doesn’t mean the Law didn’t apply to the woman, or the man just because he wasn’t present.

 

[Leferdion]

We humans do not have the power to give a deadline of repentance for someone. If that is what you call mercy, to put someone under pressure to repent before he dies, then you are mistaken. You have no idea what the person on death row is thinking, where he is with his spiritual journey. A soul pushed to repentance by fear of death does not do a genuine repentance of love but a repentance of fear.
Lets take the example of The Christian matyrs condemned to death in the colosseum: what came first: a love of God and then death as punishment of that unwavering faith in God or a fear of God and then last minute repentance of fear of the afterlife?
Point is mercy has nothing to do with the death penalty, not today anyway.

 

[Leferdion]

Answering the title of the op, the greatest scriptural death penalty case was none other than the condemnation to death of Jesus Christ by the Jews and Pontius Pilate, each thinking they were doing the best for the greater good. And guess what? Jesus Christ was innocent! We condemned an innocent man, who turned out to be God, to death…for what…because we thought we knew better right?

Mind you, the pharisees used scripture to justify the condemnation. They said Jesus Christ comitted blasphemy by claiming to be God and that is punishable by death. Unfortunately his trial was skewed, they chose only what was useful for their agenda and turned a blind eye to all the things Jesus did which indeed proved Him to be Messiah and God, since He did not have the kind of backing that will be like a very good lawyer today, He lost the case, was condemned guilty, tortured, crucified like a thief, and killed, yet innocent.

So I am tired of all this quoting of scripture left and right to justify the death sentence and people making other people look bad for not supporting the death sentence.
As christians, we are called to be merciful to our fellow brothers, even criminals. The society, inorder to protect its citizens has to enforce punishments on criminals, but when it is absolutely not necessary, why support the elective killing of an individual who is in no position of either harming the executioner or the person he inflicted harm on? the death penalty is not self defence, its not like he is pointing a gun at you. He is powerless, yet we as christians are creating hundreds of posts on this very forum trying to justify murder under such circumstances and chose to diabolise a pope who is our leader telling us life and mercy superceede death, reminding us of the very words of Jesus, who even under arrest healed the cut ear of one of those who arrested Him, even under such circumstances, even while on the cross asked His Father to forgive His executioners. Yet we claim we know better and let pride numb our predisposition to mercy.

 

[Gorgias]

According to the Mosaic Law, both the adulterer and adulteress should be put to death. That doesn’t mean the law didn’t apply to the woman just because the man wasn’t present

Without the man, how did they have evidence of adultery?

Gorgias:

• Jesus wouldn’t have “killed her.”

He could’ve.

No – what I mean is that, regardless of what He said, Jesus wouldn’t have killed her. (Unless you mean that He Himself would have stoned her, which wasn’t what was in play anyway.)

 

[Bernoulli]

Gorgias:

• Jesus wouldn’t have “killed her.”

He could’ve.

Not legally. Death penalties were reserved to Roman authorities.

 

[Gorgias]

A soul pushed to repentance by fear of death does not do a genuine repentance of love but a repentance of fear.

“Imperfect contrition” is nevertheless contrition, no?

they chose only what was useful for their agenda and turned a blind eye to all the things Jesus did which indeed proved Him to be Messiah and God

Proved Him to be God, though? I mean, sure … “Messiah”. But they didn’t seek His death because He claimed to be the Messiah. But… God ? Prior to His resurrection, what did He do that proved Himself God?

(Just playing devil’s advocate, BTW…)

 

[Leferdion]

Contrition must not be equated to the death sentence. God gave us life. God takes it back. We as humans can punish defaulters in various ways without having to make them contrite by taking their lives.

As for Jesus being God…well…there were many things…the kind of miracles he performed for one…Before Jesus, pious and good people used to perform miracles, Moses performed miracles, many prophets did, people could Heal, even in other religions.
But who could ever make eyes grow where they never were as Jesus did? or make Limbs grow back on people born without limbs?
and the greatest sign/miracle of all, which Jesus did, to proof his Divinity, was Him resurrecting Lazarus, who was a putrifying corpse, many days in the grave, gone of a nasty disease…he performed it infront of many people, including the pharisees…Who on this earth has ever performed a miracle of such magnitude! A human has no power to call a departed soul into a putrfying corpse and make both body and soul whole again. Only God can do that. The decision to kill Jesus came after the resurrection of Lazarus, because the pharisees were faced with undenying proof and were scared of the power Jesus would yield by the masses as being seen as God, so they hasted his execution after that

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Gorgias:

• Jesus wouldn’t have “killed her.”

He could’ve.

No – what I mean is that, regardless of what He said, Jesus wouldn’t have killed her. (Unless you mean that He Himself would have stoned her, which wasn’t what was in play anyway.)

I was just saying He could’ve, but chose not to.

Lunam_Meam:

Gorgias:

• The problem with the dilemma, as posed, is that there should have been a partner who was brought in the deliberation of the ‘crime.’ In the absence of a man who was brought alongside her, there’s a serious problem with the attempt to bring this as an application of Mosaic law.

According to the Mosaic Law, both the adulterer and adulteress should be put to death. That doesn’t mean the law didn’t apply to the woman just because the man wasn’t present, nor that the law didn’t apply to the man.

Without the man, how did they have evidence of adultery?

I didn’t say the accusers didn’t have evidence of adultery without the man, rather just because the man wasn’t present before Jesus doesn’t mean the Law didn’t apply to him, or the woman.

 

[Gorgias]

But who could ever make eyes grow where they never were as Jesus did? or make Limbs grow back on people born without limbs?

Umm… Jesus did neither, did He? He made unseeing eyes see, and withered limbs strong… but didn’t “grow eyes” or create limbs…!

and the greatest sign/miracle of all, which Jesus did, to proof his Divinity, was Him resurrecting Lazarus, who was a putrifying corpse, many days in the grave, gone of a nasty disease

The Bible doesn’t say Lazarus had a “nasty disease”. And, there are other resuscitations in the Bible.

So… I don’t think we can say that miracles “proved” divinity, or that the leaders were afraid of His divinity. It seems more the case that they were convinced of His blasphemy. And, what they feared was His popularity with the crowd. They didn’t really believe Him to be God, either. (Remember… the point of the Gospels is that even the apostles didn’t really understand until after the resurrection!)

I didn’t say the accusers didn’t have evidence of adultery without the man, rather just because the man wasn’t present before Jesus doesn’t mean the law didn’t apply to the woman, nor that the law didn’t apply to the man.

Ahh, but how can you prove your case without the man? 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!”

 

[Leferdion]

Dont you see what sets Lazarus’ resurrection apart from others? Resurrecting someone within a day of death, whose body is not yet in a grave is totally different from ressurecting someone who has died, in a grave, proven to be putrfying with a stench out of his rotten corpse!! To perform a resurrection of the magnitude of lazarus’ you must have the authority over Life and death, over body and soul. Many days had passed since he was in the tomb. Jesus must have known that Lazarus’s soul was not damned and in hell. Because if his soul was in Hell, he would not have called him back. So we clearly see Jesus knew, because He is God, that his soul was not damned, then with His authority of God called his soul back, then reconstrued his rotten body, and made him whole again. Only God can do that.
So please provide other examples of resurrections in the bible done by men and lets start comparing from there.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

I didn’t say the accusers didn’t have evidence of adultery without the man, rather just because the man wasn’t present before Jesus doesn’t mean the Law didn’t apply to him, or the woman.

Ahh, but how can you prove your case without the man? 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!”

“By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die that is to be slain. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him (cf. Jn. 8:7), and afterwards the hands of the rest of the people: that thou mayst take away the evil out of the midst of thee.” (Deut. 17:6-7, 19:15)

 

[Gorgias]

Resurrecting someone within a day of death, whose body is not yet in a grave is totally different from ressurecting someone who has died, in a grave, proven to be putrfying with a stench out of his rotten corpse!!

Actually, the context here is the ancient belief in that time that a person who was mistakenly believed to have died might revive, but that after three days, they were certainly dead.

Jesus must have known that Lazarus’s soul was not damned and in hell. Because if his soul was in Hell, he would not have called him back. So we clearly see Jesus knew, because He is God, that his soul was not damned, then with His authority of God called his soul back

You can say that about any resuscitation performed in the Bible.

with His authority of God called his soul back, then reconstrued his rotten body, and made him whole again. Only God can do that.

We would say the same thing about the other resuscitations. All the other miracles performed in the Bible were understood to be the work of God, too, and were understood to be performed through God by men. The resuscitation of Lazarus would have been seen similarly. Certainly, an indication that He was at least a prophet (if not the messiah), but not of necessity that He was God.

So please provide other examples of resurrections in the bible done by men and lets start comparing from there.

Notice that the man raised by Elisha’s bones was also dead and buried prior to his resuscitation.

Notice also that, in the account of Elisha’s resuscitation of the Shunammite’s son, the woman travels from Shunam to Mount Carmel to meet with Elisha. That’s about a nine-hour journey by foot. She started her journey in the afternoon. Then, Elisha’s servant goes to Shunam – and back again! Finally, Elisha and the woman go to Shunam. I think we’re well into “three-plus days” territory, wouldn’t you say?