A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[Lunam_Meam]

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

Again, I did not say it was.

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).

Perhaps in the attempt to bring him in he fled, etc. Again, whatever the reason for his absence, it did not nullify the Law on adultery for him, or the woman for the requirement to apply the death penalty to the guilty isn’t that they be in each other’s presence when they’re condemned, rather there be the testimonies of two or three truthful witnesses of the crime, or sin (Deut. 17:6-7, 19:15)

I don’t see a confirmation there.

Again, Jesus confirmed the Law on adulterers by referencing Deut. 17:6-7 in Jn. 8:7, 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]

We know the gospel messages are true.

We are confident that the “living teaching office of the Church” authentically interprets the Gospel:

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM

The Church’s living teaching office consists of all bishops, in communion with the Pope, and the Bishop of Rome. The Pope and bishops are gifted with infallibility by the Holy Spirit which allow them to teach on matters of faith and morals without error. Pope Francis may exercise his prophetic charism alone (ordinary magisterium) or in union with the bishops (extraordinary magisterium). On this matter, he has not yet invoked his power nor has any bishop, that I am aware of, challenged his teaching.

You also said the teaching on the ascension of Mary was “contrary to the Gospel”.

What I wrote was that the assumption of Mary “does not find its authority in the gospels”.

 

[sealabeag]

What I wrote was that the assumption of Mary “does not find its authority in the gospels”.

Actually what you said was that any teaching that does not find it’s authority in the Gospels is contrary to the Gospels. Which is ridiculous. Contrary means: a fact or condition incompatible with another : OPPOSITE

So, for 2000 years the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ founded and which is infallible, taught something that was directly opposed and incompatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ?

:man_shrugging:t2:

And your suggestion that “contrary to the Gospel” means “does not find its authority in the Gospel” is illogical. They are two different statements, meaning two different things.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually what you said was that any teaching that does not find it’s authority in the Gospels is contrary to the Gospels.

Is there a reason you did not use CAF’s quote facility to back up your strawman?

Simple. Any teaching that does not find its authority in the gospels, e.g., purgatory, communion of saints, indulgences, Mary’s assumption, the equivalence of Scripture and Tradition, etc.

Don’t see the word “contrary” in that quote, do you?

This red herring was your effort (after a few attempts to avoid a reply) to divert from responding to my request that you support your outlandish claim: “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”.

A protracted tooth pull ensued to elicit from you a citation to support your claim, leading up to that quote. I agree that that which is not supported is not necessarily contrary.

Now that we’ve resolved your issue, how about resolving mine. We’re still waiting for you to cite that magisterial teaching that supports your claim: “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”.

Here’s your full quote.

the Catholic Church has taught that the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel and not intrinsically evil

I’m all ears (eyes).

 

[sealabeag]

Is there a reason you did not use CAF’s quote facility to back up your strawman?

Here you go:

sealabeag:

Again, how is it possible for the Catholic Church to teach something that is “contrary to the Gospel”?

Simple. Any teaching that does not find its authority in the gospels, e.g., purgatory, communion of saints, indulgences, Mary’s assumption, the equivalence of Scripture and Tradition, etc.

I’m out, this is a most unpleasant exchange and unbecoming of two Catholics.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m out, …

Translation: “I got nothing to support my error.”

 

[sealabeag]

If that’s what you want to believe, that’s fine. Charity is more important than winning a debate. Best.

 

[o_mlly]

If that’s what you want to believe, that’s fine. Charity is more important than winning a debate.

It is always charitable to first be honest.

 

[Gorgias]

You accept that it is not which means that the judgment of when it is appropriate (a) belongs to the State, and (b) that, as a judgment, it may or may not be correct and does not oblige our assent.

No, that’s not what it means.

If we say “not intrinsically evil but not acceptable”, then we’re explicitly not saying “but the state can decide otherwise.”

And, what you’re saying about ‘judgment’ always holds, for any personal prudential judgment. Nevertheless, “our assent” or even “their judgment” is not the standard for moral liceity.

seemed based on nothing more than the personal opinions of various popes, which are not even consistent among themselves.

“personal opinions of various popes”? Are you being serious, or is this an attempt at hyperbole? Two distinct updates to the CCC, friend. That’s about as far from “personal opinion” as it gets!

And, I think they’re consistent – they’re movement along a continuum, and all in the same direction.

If the church taught before that capital punishment was morally licit, and was not in error, and teaches now that it is not morally licit, and is not in error now either, then the only way this can be so is if morality changes.

Or if our understanding of the Gospel grows. Moving in the direction of ‘mercy’ seems consistent with Gospel values, wouldn’t you say?

Perhaps in the attempt to bring him in he fled, etc.

More conjecture.

Again, whatever the reason for his absence, it did not nullify the Law on adultery for him, or the woman for the requirement to apply the death penalty to the guilty isn’t that they be in each other’s presence when they’re condemned, rather there be the testimonies of two or three truthful witnesses of the crime, or sin

I’m reminded of the story in Daniel. All it would take is the question “with whom, pray tell?”, and the case falls apart. (Unless, of course, you’re able to produce an adulterer.)

Jesus confirmed the Law on adulterers by referencing Deut. 17:6-7 in Jn. 8:7

It doesn’t seem that way to me – in fact, it seems that there’s a different standard in play here that contradicts Deut 17 – but pray tell, please explain why you think this is so.

Moreover, the Pharisees’ own words betray their twisting of Mosaic law. Does the law “command [them] to stone such women”? No, it doesn’t. It commands them to stone both of the offenders. So, they’re clearly misstating the law, in the hopes of trapping Jesus.

 

[Ender]

We are confident that the “living teaching office of the Church” authentically interprets the Gospel:

True, but that teaching office doesn’t include you, nor is it synonymous with the pope alone.

What I wrote was that the assumption of Mary “does not find its authority in the gospels”.

It ought to be obvious, then, that if “found in the Gospel” is irrelevant to the truth of Mary’s assumption it is equally irrelevant to the truth regarding to capital punishment.

If we say “not intrinsically evil but not acceptable”, then we’re explicitly not saying “but the state can decide otherwise.”

This seems to confirm my claim that the approach being taken is not to call capital intrinsically evil, but to treat it as if it was.

“personal opinions of various popes”? Are you being serious, or is this an attempt at hyperbole?

As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm…that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

If the position expressed by JPII was prudential, surely that taken by Francis is as well, and a prudential judgment is a considered opinion.

And, I think they’re consistent…

Except that JPII said capital punishment could be legitimate while Francis claimed it is contrary to the Gospel. If Francis is right then JPII was wrong; those statements are inconsistent.

Or if our understanding of the Gospel grows.

That claim is not altogether convincing.

Arguments from the progress of ethical consciousness have been used to promote a number of alleged human rights that the Catholic Church consistently rejects in the name of Scripture and tradition. The magisterium appeals to these authorities as grounds for repudiating divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood. If the Church feels herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to proclaim a “moral revolution” on the issue of capital punishment. (Dulles, 2001)

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Perhaps in the attempt to bring him in he fled, etc.

More conjecture.

I have been presenting possible, reasonable explanations for the absence of the adulterer at the adulteress’s sentencing, since it is not in the Law that he and her must be put to death at the same time, or location. I have not claimed any of those explanations is suggested in the biblical text, and thus none are conjecture.

I’m reminded of the story in Daniel. All it would take is the question “with whom, pray tell?”, and the case falls apart. (Unless, of course, you’re able to produce an adulterer.)

The adulterer and adulteress were caught in the act of adultery by at least two or three truthful witnesses, and thus both were eligible to be put to death (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 17:6-7, 19:15, 22:22). It is not in the Law that: (i) the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death at the same time, or location, and (ii) if the adulterer or adulteress fails to be put to death then the other is no longer bound by the Law.

Gorgias:

Gorgias:

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.

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!”

Moreover, the Pharisees’ own words betray their twisting of Mosaic law. Does the law “command [them] to stone such women”? No, it doesn’t. It commands them to stone both of the offenders. So, they’re clearly misstating the law, in the hopes of trapping Jesus.

As one can see above, you have varying arguments regarding the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ understanding of the Mosaic Law on adultery, and their intention behind attempting to accuse Jesus in such a case.

Please pick a lane, then get back to me. Thank you in advance.

 

[o_mlly]

True, but that teaching office doesn’t include you, nor is it synonymous with the pope alone.

Of course I’m not included. I didn’t quote me, I quoted the Pope.

And, you are wrong. The pope can exercise his ordinary magisterium alone and when he does he is synonymous with the “living teaching office” of the church. I note that in your arguments against the teaching of the recent popes on capital punishment, your citations are mostly, if not exclusively, from non-magisterial sources. So we may certainly exclude you and your sources as legitimate appeals to the authority of the living teaching office of the church.

It ought to be obvious, then, that if “found in the Gospel” is irrelevant to the truth of Mary’s assumption it is equally irrelevant to the truth regarding to capital punishment.

If the gospels taught that assumption before the end times was not possible then Mary’s Assumption would be contrary to the gospels and you would have a point. The gospels don’t so you don’t.

 

[Gorgias]

I have been presenting possible, reasonable explanations for the absence of the adulterer at the adulteress’s sentencing, since it is not in the Law that he and her must be put to death at the same time, or location.

Fair enough. Yet, in order to have ‘adultery’, you need not only an ‘adulteress’ but also an ‘adulterer’. There’s nothing in the passage to suggest that either (1) one was present or (2) one had already had judgment passed upon him or even (3) that the Pharisees were saying “we know who the guy is and we’ve got a BOLO out for him.” Rather, based on what we do have in the passage, we merely have the Pharisees saying “we want to mete out punishment for a two-person sin, but we’re presenting one person to you.”

That’s the kind of thing that gets thrown out of court, and Jesus’ answer shows the same kind of response.

Please pick a lane, then get back to me.

I’ve picked my lane, and am staying in it. Only one person presented in the context of a two-person sin. Only one person held up as being held guilty, in the context of a stipulation in Mosaic Law that two people are to be held guilty.

“Consistency” is my middle name, sir…

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Gorgias:

More conjecture.

Again, I have been presenting possible, reasonable explanations for the absence of the adulterer at the adulteress’s sentencing, since it is not in the Law that he and her must be put to death at the same time, or location. I have not claimed any of those explanations is suggested in the biblical text, and thus none are conjecture.

Fair enough.

I’m pleased you understand now.

“Consistency” is my middle name, sir…

I’m not a “sir”, and you are not consistent when you have argued for various scenarios regarding the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ understanding of the Mosaic Law on adultery, and their intention behind attempting to accuse Jesus in such a case:

(i) “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.”

(ii) "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!”

(iii) “…the Pharisees’ own words betray their twisting of Mosaic law. Does the law “command [them] to stone such women”? No, it doesn’t. It commands them to stone both of the offenders. So, they’re clearly misstating the law, in the hopes of trapping Jesus.”

So, I asked you to pick a lane out of the above, and according to your previous post you’ve picked (iii).

My reply is the adulterer and adulteress were caught in the act of adultery by at least two or three truthful witnesses (Jn. 8:4), and thus both were guilty, and eligible to be put to death, according to the Law (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 17:6-7, 19:15, 22:22).

It is not in the Law that: (i) the adulterer and adulteress must be sentenced to death and/or killed at the same time/location as the other, (ii) if the adulterer or adulteress is not sentenced to death and/or killed at the same time/location as the other, then the latter is no longer bound by the Law, and (iii) mercy cannot be shown.

Futhermore, for sake of argument, even if the Mosaic Law said the adulterer and adulteress must be sentenced to death and/or killed at the same time/location as the other, and the Pharisees and Sadducees misstated the Law in an attempt to accuse Jesus, then when He addressed the witnesses saying they should be the first to throw the stones at the adulteress (Deut. 17:6-7, 19:15, 22:22), be it they were without sin, they could have accused Him of not knowing the Law, and acting against it, since that was their goal, according to you.

 

[Ender]

I didn’t quote me, I quoted the Pope.

And then you gave your interpretation of his comments, which is the source of the disagreement.

And, you are wrong. The pope can exercise his ordinary magisterium alone and when he does he is synonymous with the “living teaching office” of the church.

Apparently not…

The Church’s “extraordinary” magisterium, capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed solely-papally or papally-episcopally ; but her “ordinary” magisterium, also capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed only papally-episcopally . As Francis’ move on the Catechism hardly qualifies as papal-episcopal, and there being no such thing as an ‘purely papal, ordinary, magisterium’ (the term itself seems an oxymoron, implying that some significant points of Church teaching have been taught only by popes!), then Francis’ views on the death penalty might (I stress, might, given the infallibility concerns above) contribute to the Church’s ordinary magisterium but they do not, and cannot, control it. (Edward Peters, 2018)

I note that in your arguments against the teaching of the recent popes on capital punishment, your citations are mostly, if not exclusively, from non-magisterial sources. So we may certainly exclude you and your sources as legitimate appeals to the authority of the living teaching office of the church.

This is the most common way of treating arguments that are difficult to refute: they are dismissed and ignored.

If the gospels taught that assumption before the end times was not possible then Mary’s Assumption would be contrary to the gospels and you would have a point. The gospels don’t so you don’t.

I’ll ask this again: if capital punishment is per se contrary to the Gospel, does this not mean that the Gospel contradicts Scripture, old and new testaments alike?

 

[o_mlly]

And then you gave your interpretation of his comments, which is the source of the disagreement.

Citations from formal documents authored by sitting popes can hardly be called, “his comments”.

And when the wording is plain enough, only those who wish to dismiss that which is obvious seek to find alternate “interpretations”. In the citations offered, I have indicated that only the word “inadmissible” lacks theological precision and I await clarification.

The Church’s “extraordinary” magisterium, capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed solely-papally …

… The ordinary magisterium, one must see, takes a long, long time, to develop; it requires repetition and consistency over many generations, this, not simply on the part of popes but also by the bishops around the world (Edward Peters, 2018).

As Peters notes, the ordinary magisterium normally precedes the extraordinary form often for generations. And, as I noted, we are now witnessing just that phenomena in the recent popes exercise of their teaching office:

Pope Francis may exercise his prophetic charism alone (ordinary magisterium) or in union with the bishops (extraordinary magisterium). On this matter, he has not yet invoked his power nor has any bishop, that I am aware of, challenged his teaching.

Do you have a formal statement from any episcopal conference that promotes the states use of the death penalty? The movement toward a future extraordinary magisterial pronouncement seems to be in progress.

I’ll ask this again: if capital punishment is per se contrary to the Gospel, does this not mean that the Gospel contradicts Scripture, old and new testaments alike?

No.

 

[Gorgias]

So, I asked you to pick a lane out of the above, and according to your previous post you’ve picked (iii).

Huh? I’m detailing the “trap” that the Pharisees set in (i) and (ii), not choosing one over the other, and then pointing out inconsistencies in the Pharisees’ own approach!

Futhermore, for sake of argument, even if the Mosaic Law said the adulterer and adulteress must be sentenced to death and/or killed at the same time/location as the other, and the Pharisees and Sadducees misstated the Law in an attempt to accuse Jesus, then when He addressed the witnesses saying they should be the first to throw the stones at the adulteress (Deut. 17:6-7, 19:15, 22:22), be it they were without sin, they could have accused Him of not knowing the Law, and acting against it, since that was their goal, according to you.

Interesting assertion. Yet, if we look at it carefully, we’ll find that it doesn’t help Jesus sidestep the trap they’d set. If Jesus makes a claim about the law, then they’re still able to make the counter-claim that Jesus doesn’t know the law Himself. And, since they’re the interpreters of the law, they win on that claim. See? That falls right into their trap.

So, instead, Jesus takes a different tack – one which denies them the ability to claim victory on either horn of the dilemma.

 

[Ender]

And when the wording is plain enough, only those who wish to dismiss that which is obvious seek to find alternate “interpretations”. In the citations offered, I have indicated that only the word “inadmissible” lacks theological precision and I await clarification.

If you argue based on what JPII said then you are effectively ignoring what Francis said…while you wait for clarification. Their positions are incompatible, so apparently Francis wording is not plain enough.

As Peters notes, the ordinary magisterium normally precedes the extraordinary form often for generations. And, as I noted, we are now witnessing just that phenomena in the recent popes exercise of their teaching office:

What I addressed was this claim: “The pope can exercise his ordinary magisterium alone and when he does he is synonymous with the “living teaching office” of the church.” This assertion is incorrect; the pope has no such authority.

Ender:

I’ll ask this again: if capital punishment is per se contrary to the Gospel, does this not mean that the Gospel contradicts Scripture, old and new testaments alike?

No.

I guess this is another case where the plain meaning of words isn’t plain enough. Throughout Scripture (as interpreted by virtually all of the Fathers and Doctors of the church) are passages not only permitting capital punishment, but commanding it as well. The Gospel, however, (as interpreted by Francis) condemns it. We thus have the situation where Scripture approves of it and the Gospel disapproves of it…and you believe that those positions do not contradict one another. Absurd conclusions are good indications that the position being defended is…weak.

 

[o_mlly]

If you argue based on what JPII said then you are effectively ignoring what Francis said…while you wait for clarification. Their positions are incompatible, so apparently Francis wording is not plain enough.

No, the statements are not incompatible. St. JPII’s teaching is intelligible and needs no clarification. Pope Francis’ teaching lacks the same clarity but that lack of clarity does not make his teaching incompatible with St.JPII’s teaching.

What I addressed was this claim: “ The pope can exercise his ordinary magisterium alone and when he does he is synonymous with the “living teaching office” of the church. ” This assertion is incorrect; the pope has no such authority.

No, the post is quite correct. The pope has such authority to teach independently of the bishops:

*Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a “definitive” pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching. …

The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter. ( CDF, DONUM VERITATIS).

You will note that the revision of the catechism number 2267 was published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as an ordinary act of the magisterium.

We thus have the situation where Scripture approves of it and the Gospel disapproves of it

That is an inaccurate statement and wrongly interprets Pope Francis.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

“Consistency” is my middle name, sir…

You’re not consistent by changing the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ understanding of the Mosaic Law on adultery, and their intention behind attempting to accuse Jesus in such a case, after my every counter-argument:

(i) “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.”

(ii) "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!”

(iii) “…the Pharisees’ own words betray their twisting of Mosaic law. Does the law “command [them] to stone such women”? No, it doesn’t. It commands them to stone both of the offenders. So, they’re clearly misstating the law, in the hopes of trapping Jesus.”

This is your latest argument:

(iv) “If Jesus makes a claim about the law, then they’re still able to make the counter-claim that Jesus doesn’t know the law Himself. And, since they’re the interpreters of the law, they win on that claim. See? That falls right into their trap. So, instead, Jesus takes a different tack – one which denies them the ability to claim victory on either horn of the dilemma.”

Your new interpretation of the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ plan seems to leave out the adulterer at all. And, if they wanted to accuse Jesus, wouldn’t they still be able to say He doesn’t know the Law on adultery, since they can just interpret Jesus’s addressing the witnesses, and telling those without sin should cast the first stone at the adulteress to be unlawful and wrong, and get Him in trouble? If they can say any claim Jesus makes is “wrong”, then why not say His “sentence” is wrong, and against the Law on adultery as well? Even if you are still arguing the Law on adultery says the adulterer must be sentenced to death, and/or killed at the same time/location as the adulteress, then nothing about what Jesus did should’ve changed that, and they should have told Jesus that His judgement was wrong, because the man isn’t there…