A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[Gorgias]

The adulterer’s lack of presence in that moment did not nullify the Law on adultery for either of them

So… how does a couple get found in the act of adultery in the city of Jerusalem, yet only the woman condemned?

That would be, in a very literal way, the very definition of injustice.

 

[sealabeag]

I would ask you one question - is the death penalty “per se contrary to the Gospel” or not?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

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.

So… how does a couple get found in the act of adultery in the city of Jerusalem, yet only the woman condemned?

The man may have been taken elsewhere, or already received punishment, or fled custody, or died in custody, and so on. The point is, just because he wasn’t present with the woman in that moment, for whatever reason, it did not nullify the Law on adultery for either of them, for reasons explained above.

 

[Gorgias]

I would ask you one question - is the death penalty “per se contrary to the Gospel” or not?

Pope Francis says it is, in a non-magisterial context. In the CCC, that’s not asserted in those terms.

The man may have been taken elsewhere, or already received punishment, or fled custody, or died in custody, and so on.

Now you’re just making stuff up. The passage doesn’t suggest any of that.

(Note, too, that if that actually were the case, then Jesus’ response – letting the woman go while allowing the man to be punished – wouldn’t be just.)

The point is, just because he wasn’t present with the woman in that moment, for whatever reason, it did not nullify the Law on adultery for either of them

I would assert that it does. One cannot have an adulteress without an adulterer.

 

[sealabeag]

Pope Francis says it is, in a non-magisterial context. In the CCC, that’s not asserted in those terms.

He does, but I’m asking what you think? Do you believe that the death penalty is per say or intrinsically contrary to the Gospel?

 

[Montrose]

“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?

The Church does not say the death penalty is forbidden so don’t keep repeating what you have quoted several times already. The teaching of the Church is the teaching of God.

 

[o_mlly]

I would ask you one question - is the death penalty “per se contrary to the Gospel” or not?

Yes.

Scriptural support for employing the death penalty can only be found in the Old Testament and Paul’s epistle to the Romans 13:4. The context in which Paul writes the “rulers … do not bear the sword” is less an affirmation of the ruler’s right to end life than an admonition to Christians to obey the ruler which is the theme of that section in Paul’s letter.

 

[sealabeag]

Are you aware that for ~2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel and not intrinsically evil, but a morally just punishment in certain circumstances? So, is the Church wrong, or are you wrong?
Saint Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church considered the position that the death penalty was intrinsically evil to be a heresy.

As for scriptural support, St Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, etc., found support for their positions of support for the death penalty in scripture. New and Old.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you aware that for ~2000 years the Catholic Church has taught that the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel and not intrinsically evil, but a morally just punishment in certain circumstances? So, is the Church wrong, or are you wrong?

Neither, rather I think it is you that is wrong. Cite the Magisterial document that teaches, “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”.

 

[sealabeag]

I mean, there would be a multitude of them. I can link a few if you’d like. It is not a controversial fact that the Church has taught for 2000 years that the death penalty is moral, in certain circumstances, and certainly not intrinsically evil. I assure you that this is not just my opinion, it is an uncontroversial fact. The controversy is whether or not the Pope, or layperson, can safely assert that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, which would be to take a position contrary to the Church.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Gorgias:

Lunam_Meam:

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 absence in that moment did not nullify the Law on adultery for either of them, for reasons explained above.

So… how does a couple get found in the act of adultery in the city of Jerusalem, yet only the woman condemned?

The man may have fled custody, already received punishment, or was being held elsewhere. The point is, whatever the reason for his absence in that moment, it did not nullify the Law on adultery for either of them, for reasons explained.

Now you’re just making stuff up. The passage doesn’t suggest any of that.

(Note, too, that if that actually were the case, then Jesus’ response – letting the woman go while allowing the man to be punished – wouldn’t be just.)

I did not say the passage does suggest any of that. In fact, it does not suggest anything about the man’s whereabouts. I presented two possibilities, or it could have been none of the above. Perhaps the sentencing had been taking place elsewhere, and they first put to death the man, but before doing likewise to the woman, it was then it occurred to the Pharisees and Sadducees they should seek Jesus, and His opinion on the matter, in an attempt to accuse Him, before they put her to death. Whatever the reason for the man’s absence, Jesus was uninvolved, and it did not nullify the Law on adultery for either guilty party, for reasons explained.

Furthermore, after Jesus was asked His opinion (Jn. 8:5), He only said that those who were without sin should throw the stones (Jn. 8:7). And, no one struck her, because no one was without sin (Jn. 8:9). So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found. He could have killed her, it would have been justice, but it would not have been mercy. He gave that soul time and possibility to arrive 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.

 

[o_mlly]

I mean, there would be a multitude of them. I can link a few if you’d like.

Yes, please backup your claim by citing the Magisterial document that teaches, “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”.

You’ve already cited the Magisterial document that teaches the exact opposite of your claim.

 

[sealabeag]

No problem, I will provide as many examples as you’d like. There are many. Like I said, this is a funny thing for two Catholics to argue about because it isn’t controversial. Currently on my phone so I’ll do it when I’m on my pc, just a little easier.
Oh, and no document I’ve cited in this thread is magisterial, as far as I can recall. Which document? My excerpts from Pope Francis were from a talk he gave, nothing magisterial.

 

[o_mlly]

No problem, I will provide as many examples as you’d like.

Yes, the Address you cited is not a magisterial document. However, the issue is one of fact: “Is the death penalty contrary to the gospel?” or restated positively, “Does the gospel affirm the death penalty?”

Look forward to your citations showing Magisterial teachings that “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”.

 

[sealabeag]

Just to be clear - I feel that perhaps you’re focusing on this “does the Gospel affirm the death penalty” thing, which might fall more into the realm of opinion. What I’m going to provide you with is supporting evidence for the fact that the Church has always taught that the death penalty is a just and acceptable punishment and not intrinsically evil. In case there’s any confusion. After that the question of whether that teaching has changed and if so, how can a Church teaching change, might be worth discussing.
The answer, of course, is that it cannot.

 

[Gorgias]

He does, but I’m asking what you think? Do you believe that the death penalty is per say or intrinsically contrary to the Gospel?

I think that St Pope John Paul II expressed it sufficiently well, in a way that didn’t necessarily need tinkered with – and, to tell the truth, in a way that Pope Francis isn’t changing: it seemed prudent in the past, but we cannot justify its use any longer.

Perhaps the sentencing had been taking place elsewhere, and they first killed the man, but before killing the woman it was then the Pharisees and Sadducees thought: “This would be an ideal opportunity to trap Jesus, by asking His opinion on this matter”, then brought the woman before Him?

Again, that’s nowhere to be found in the account.

Whatever the reason for the man’s absence, Jesus was uninvolved, and it did not nullify the Law on adultery for either guilty party, for reasons explained.

It does “nullify” it, if it’s none of the stories you’ve made up, but merely that they didn’t present the man for punishment (which is all we see in the passage).

So, He confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers

I don’t see a confirmation there. Jesus manages to avoid the trap by deferring commentary on the Law and its application. That’s the whole point of His answer.

 

[sealabeag]

I think that St Pope John Paul II expressed it sufficiently well, in a way that didn’t necessarily need tinkered with – and, to tell the truth, in a way that Pope Francis isn’t changing: it seemed prudent in the past, but we cannot justify its use any longer.

You don’t think Pope Francis has said anything different to Pope John Paul II? Sorry I could be misunderstanding you here.

 

[Gorgias]

You don’t think Pope Francis has said anything different to Pope John Paul II? Sorry I could be misunderstanding you here.

You asked my opinion. My opinion is that JPII’s comments didn’t require modification, as such. At best, the modification could merely have been “we don’t see the need for the death penalty now or ever again”, without the justification that it’s contrary to love and human dignity. Nevertheless, the justification stands up to scrutiny: whereas JPII said “in the past, they didn’t have adequate measures to protect the populace against violent criminals”, Francis now says “…but they should have tried, anyway.” Neither justification changes where we are today: no death penalty now or in the future.

 

[sealabeag]

So you have no problem with Pope Francis saying that something is intrinsically “contrary to the Gospel”, which the Church has always taught, was not?
Somehow replied to myself lol this is for @Gorgias

 

[Gorgias]

So you have no problem with Pope Francis saying that something is intrinsically “contrary to the Gospel”, which the Church has always taught, was not?

You keep inserting “intrinsically” into the discussion, implying that Pope Francis made the claim in that way. He didn’t.

So, do I have a problem with him saying that it is “contrary to the Gospel”? No. Does that mean, though, that he said it is “intrinsically evil”? No, it does not.