A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[Gorgias]

“Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned. 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. 17:5-7, 19:15)

Deuteronomy 17 and 19 aren’t dealing with adultery, though. They’re merely dealing with the case of an individual who commits a grave sin. The provisions for the punishment of adultery are found in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 22:

If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

If a man is discovered lying with a woman who is married to another, they both shall die, the man who was lying with the woman as well as the woman…

If there is a young woman, a virgin who is betrothed, and a man comes upon her in the city and lies with her, you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the young woman because she did not cry out though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.

So, in either case, in order to follow the prescription of the Mosaic law, it would be required to bring both the man and the woman who were found to be committing adultery. That didn’t happen in this case.

 

[Leferdion]

The raising of the son of the woman of Shunem is a miracle by Elisha recorded in the Hebrew Bible, 2 Kings 4.

2 Kings 4: 32 When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. 33 So he went in and shut the door behind the two of them and prayed to the Lord. 34 Then he went up and lay on the child, putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. And as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm. 35 Then he got up again and walked once back and forth in the house, and went up and stretched himself upon him. The child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.

Here we have a corpse, with flesh, still intact…still lying there, cold, not rotten. How can you compare both ?

 

[Leferdion]

2 Kings 13:21 tells us: So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha ; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha , he revived and stood on his feet. Elisha was dead .

here it is clear they were burying the man, yet you say he was already buried. Please present the facts correctly

 

[Leferdion]

in the old times corpses were buried almost immediately after death. There were no mortuaries. If the boy was dead many days it would have been indicated in the text. If the man was getting rotten or already buried it would have been indicated in the text. None of those resurrection narratives comes even near that of Lazarus.
Another question is why did Jesus have to wait until Lazarus was getting rotten in the grave before resurrecting him. He could have as well healed him while he was ill (it is said that Lazarus was Jesus’s friend so Jesus would have known about his illness), or if he was very far away from Lazarus he could have healed or resurrected him as soon as he died from distance, because Jesus has done that many times already, healing and bringing people back to life without being physically present at the scene. So why did he have to wait, travel all the way to Bethany, then resurrect a rotten corpse which was stinking, if not to prove a point that He was God?

 

[godisgood77]

This requires us to believe that the church failed for 2000 years to understand God’s will. All of the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and councils were in error and that it was only in 2018 that someone finally figured out the truth. Is that really the position you want to take?

I’d frame the question differently… The Church, including all of its Saints, Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils, is constantly coming to a fuller understanding of God’s will and truth. In Catholic moral theology this is know as the law of gradualness. I’d bet that all of the Doctors, Saints, Popes, etc would admit that they weren’t perfect

 

[Gorgias]

Here we have a corpse, with flesh, still intact…still lying there, cold, not rotten. How can you compare both ?

By the timelines given in the text. In addition, you don’t have Lazarus as “a rotten corpse” in that passage in the Gospel.

here it is clear they were burying the man, yet you say he was already buried. Please present the facts correctly

I did. I said that he was dead and buried prior to resuscitation. That is true.

in the old times corpses were buried almost immediately after death.

Not true. The whole idea of a ‘wake’ was to allow sufficient time to pass that a person deeply unconscious (but not dead) would regain consciousness and not be buried alive.

If the boy was dead many days it would have been indicated in the text.

They’re telling precisely that story by the way they tell the account! (1) The mother’s trip to Mt Carmel. (2) The servant’s trip to Shunam. (3) The servant’s return trip to Mt Carmel. (4) Elisha’s trip to Shunam. If there was no time in between these, and just back-to-back travel, then that’s a minimum of 36 hours of non-stop travel, day and night! Since it’s likely to be largely daytime travel, you’ve easily got three to four days worth of it. So… “many days” appears realistic.

Another question is why did Jesus have to wait until Lazarus was getting rotten in the grave before resurrecting him.

You’re helping my case here, you realize, right? If Jesus had come earlier, then the naysayers could have retorted, “he wasn’t really dead; he just recuperated from his illness.”

then resurrect a rotten corpse which was stinking

You keep making this the central point of your argument. The passage doesn’t say this. Martha doesn’t say that he was stinking, but merely asserts that this is likely to be the case:

Lord, by now there will be a stench; he has been dead for four days

So why did he have to wait, travel all the way to Bethany, then resurrect a rotten corpse which was stinking, if not to prove a point that He was God?

And yet, that’s not the takeaway by the witnesses, either!

 

[Ender]

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?

I think a great deal more is implied rather than asserted. There was this, however:

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.

If we accept that statement as accurate then it is fair to ask: what has changed?

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”.

If ever there was a prudential argument against capital punishment, it is this one, and inasmuch as it is prudential there is no obligation to assent to it. I’m with you: I don’t believe it is accurate, nor do I believe it a valid argument even if it was true. Protection has never been, and is not now, the primary objective of punishment. The moral obligation is to apply a punishment that is just, not one that protects.

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”

One must be very cautious in commenting on papal announcements, nonetheless this statement appears to directly contradict what the church has always taught. That position was based on Scripture.

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… (St Bellarmine)

There is also this:

in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

What, then, was the interpretation of the Fathers regarding capital punishment?

Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment (Dulles)

If we assume Francis’ words are his personal perspective on the matter then there is no problem for the church as an institution. If, however, it is assumed to be a doctrinal pronouncement then the problem can hardly be overstated.

 

[Ender]

The Church, including all of its Saints, Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils, is constantly coming to a fuller understanding of God’s will and truth. In Catholic moral theology this is know as the law of gradualness. I’d bet that all of the Doctors, Saints, Popes, etc would admit that they weren’t perfect

Can what was moral in the past become immoral in the future as long as the change happens gradually, or is morality fixed and unchangeable for all time? As for the imperfections of the individual Fathers and Doctors, this would be an argument for dismissing everything any of them ever said. If we can discard their position on this subject because “they weren’t perfect” then why should we accept anything they said? That argument applies everywhere.

Recognize the significance of your argument. It is nothing less than the casual dismissal of the significance of the past. It is an abandonment of sacred tradition and undermines the church herself.

…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. (Dei Verbum 10)

 

[Dolphin]

the adulterous woman (Jn. 8:1-11). Would you have wanted Jesus to kill her? It would’ve been justice

Perhaps Jesus was also showing that killing adulterous people isn’t justice.

 

[sealabeag]

Ok, so what if, as seems to be the case, Pope Francis is indeed stating, contrary to tradition and the teaching of the Church Fathers and every previous Pope and the Church’s most eminent theologians, that the death penalty is intrinsically evil? What does this mean? To me it has to mean that his teachings are non-magisterial. Because the Church cannot fall until error, and this is clearly not a “development of doctrine” but a complete reversal, so it cannot be magisterial, a “new” Church teaching. But the whole thing makes me very uncomfortable. I started a thread previously and was told that even a “h word” can be validly elected Pope, so I’m happy that Pope Francis is genuinely the Pope. But it’s very confusing and the line of “you know what” seems to have become very close to being crossed…

 

[Ender]

Ok, so what if, as seems to be the case, Pope Francis is indeed stating, contrary to tradition and the teaching of the Church Fathers and every previous Pope and the Church’s most eminent theologians, that the death penalty is intrinsically evil?

As I said, one needs to be very cautious here. That said, it seems there are some observations that can be fairly (and safely) made.

The word “inadmissible” implies that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, but does not actually claim it. The pope had used that word before and was asked to clarify it. Altering the catechism would have been the perfect opportunity to do so, but he chose not to. It seems to me one cannot legitimately claim that the two terms are synonymous.

Because the Church cannot fall [into] error, and this is clearly not a “development of doctrine” but a complete reversal, so it cannot be magisterial, a “new” Church teaching.

Ratzinger, 1972 - “On the contrary, criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church,” he added.

Ratzinger held that even an “ultimate binding decision” by the pope wouldn’t be valid if there was “no clear evidence from the sources” of Catholic doctrine.

But the whole thing makes me very uncomfortable. I started a thread previously and was told that even a “h word” can be validly elected Pope, so I’m happy that Pope Francis is genuinely the Pope. But it’s very confusing and the line of “you know what” seems to have become very close to being crossed…

Asserting that states lacked the moral authority to impose capital punishment was considered a heresy, so taking now what was considered a heretical position before is certainly problematic - but not if the opposition is based on the prudential judgment that it is unwise today rather than immoral for all time.

 

[godisgood77]

Can what was moral in the past become immoral in the future as long as the change happens gradually, or is morality fixed and unchangeable for all time?

What was moral in the past cannot become immoral objectively. The catch is that our understanding of what is moral or immoral does change as we gain greater understanding… human’s are often wrong or incomplete in their understanding.

 

[sealabeag]

So in the past the Church taught that the death penalty was moral because it’s understanding was not developed enough? But now we know better?
In other words the Church was wrong previously?

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, so what if, as seems to be the case, Pope Francis is indeed stating, contrary to tradition and the teaching of the Church Fathers and every previous Pope and the Church’s most eminent theologians, that the death penalty is intrinsically evil?

He’s not. He can’t. However, what he is saying is that it appears that there is no licit recourse to it, given current theological thought.

So in the past the Church taught that the death penalty was moral because it’s understanding was not developed enough?

No… just that it was an expression of the state of moral thought at the time.

 

[sealabeag]

http://www.vatican.va/content/franc...20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html

Have you read this? He says “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"

So I’m not so sure you’re right. Although I wish you were.

 

[sealabeag]

No… just that it was an expression of the state of moral thought at the time.

That sounds an awful lot like “It is objectively immoral but the Church, reflecting the thought of the times, taught it was moral. But it’s not. And the Church has evolved its understanding to reflect the fact that it is objectively immoral”. Not trying to put words in your mouth, just not sure what you mean and that’s how I read it.

 

[Kei]

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

An imperfect contrition is better than not repenting at all, and a confession with imperfect contrition is valid because of the kindness of God. He is so kind, even such an imperfect contrition is worth making. The prodigal son was hungry and without money, but his father still came running to him, wanting a feast.

Facing a severe penalty can awaken within the realization of the utter depravity of one’s crimes. I agree today it is not the best idea, I am trying to “steelman” the capital punishment case though no doubt I am not the best intellect to do that.

 

[Ender]

sealabeag:

Ok, so what if, as seems to be the case, Pope Francis is indeed stating, contrary to tradition and the teaching of the Church Fathers and every previous Pope and the Church’s most eminent theologians, that the death penalty is intrinsically evil?

He’s not. He can’t. However, what he is saying is that it appears that there is no licit recourse to it, given current theological thought.

This approach seems to be: “We know the death penalty isn’t intrinsically evil, but we’ll act as if it is.” If it is not evil per se then it can be licit; if it is never licit then it is always evil. It has to be one or the other. Now if all he’s saying is that “It’s use appears illicit to me at this time” then there isn’t a problem, but that doesn’t seem to be how this is understood.

No… just that it was an expression of the state of moral thought at the time.

Again, this is very simple and straightforward: either the church was wrong in teaching that capital punishment could be a moral choice, or she wasn’t. Which is it? If it was actually moral before then it is moral now. If is truly immoral, then for 2000 years the church taught that something immoral was actually moral, which is a rather grave error.

If Francis is right that capital punishment is per se contrary to the Gospel (and we are correct in understanding that to mean it is intrinsically evil), then the church taught evil as good for two millennia. There are only two possibilities here: the church either was or was not in error. Which position are you taking?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Deut. 22:22

If a man is discovered lying with a woman who is married to another, they both shall die, the man who was lying with the woman as well as the woman…

Deut. 22:23-24

If there is a young woman, a virgin who is betrothed, and a man comes upon her in the city and lies with her, you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the young woman because she did not cry out though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.

So, in either case, in order to follow the prescription of the Mosaic Law, it would be required to bring both the man and the woman who were found to be committing adultery. That didn’t happen in this case.

According to the Mosaic Law, an adulterer and adulteress deserved death (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22), but no man could be put to death without the requirement of truthful testimony of two or three witnesses, whatsoever the sin be, and the hands of the witnesses were first upon him to kill him (Deut. 17:6-7, 19:15, cf. Jn. 8:7)

Regarding the adulteress in Jn. 8:3-11, she was already accused of adultery by multiple witnesses, thus not brought in for deliberation, rather condemnation of her crime, or sin. The adulterer’s lack of presence in that moment did not nullify the Law on adultery for either of them, for reasons explained above.

 

[Gorgias]

This approach seems to be: “ We know the death penalty isn’t intrinsically evil, but we’ll act as if it is .” If it is not evil per se then it can be licit; if it is never licit then it is always evil. It has to be one or the other. Now if all he’s saying is that “It’s use appears illicit to me at this time” then there isn’t a problem, but that doesn’t seem to be how this is understood.

No… I think this is not a valid approach. It seems that you’re attempting to define a continuum that only has “intrinsically evil” and “always and everywhere licit” as valid points. That seems too restrictive; there are more points in-between.

Things that are not “intrinsically evil” may be licit only in rare cases. Take the so-called “just war doctrine” as an example. Wars are not “intrinsically evil”, but there are certainly a range of considerations which come into play in order for a war to rise to the level of moral liceity.

The suggestion that it is not envisioned that we’ll find a case of liceity in the context of capital punishment does not imply that Pope Francis is changing Church teaching by attempting to call it “intrinsically evil.”

Again, this is very simple and straightforward: either the church was wrong in teaching that capital punishment could be a moral choice, or she wasn’t. Which is it?

It is within the realm of theoretically possibility, but it does not rise to the level of practical application. Therefore, no tension in terms of doctrinal assertion.

If Francis is right that capital punishment is per se contrary to the Gospel (and we are correct in understanding that to mean it is intrinsically evil),

I would assert that you’re not correct in that understanding. Christ distinguished actions in a greater number of categories than you’re asserting. Divorce is contrary to God’s will… but is not intrinsically evil, according to Jesus’ teaching.

There are only two possibilities here: the church either was or was not in error. Which position are you taking?

Neither. I’m asserting a third position. The Church was not in error in the past, nor is it in error now.