Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Maximus1]

It is ultimately a human dignity issue. Like abortion, people miss that

 

[Ender]

This verse does not say “Whosoever sheds the blood of man, provided the circumstances are serious enough and the transgressor is mentally fit, by man shall his blood be shed”. It says nothing about general rules, or default punishments, or anything of the sort. So if you insist on interpreting this verse as instructions to civil authorities, then you would have to take the absolute command interpretation, which you obviously will not do. Therefore your interpretation that this in instruction to civil authority is unfounded.

What of the command “Thou shalt not kill”? That comes with no general rules for exceptions either, so how should we interpret it? No one thinks it means literally what it says, that would be ludicrous, and it is equally unreasonable to suggest that Gn 9:6 is to be understood literally and without exception. This objection is spurious.

It is neither a prophecy nor instruction to civil authorities. It is a warning to transgressors.

You have completely altered the nature of that passage from a command which God himself gave to mankind to exist for all time into a warning to the unjust that he might possibly face execution. Your interpretation bears no resemblance to the actual words, nor do you provide any justification for dismissing the explanation given by a Doctor of the Church in favor of your own opinion.

All the support you have offered for your position have been either too strong or too weak. Too strong meaning if taken the way you want would require executing children.

I guess no matter how often I explicitly reject this as not in the least resembling my position you will continue to insist this is what I believe, as it is surely easier to rebut the irrational statement you ascribe to me than to effectively respond to what I have clearly presented as what I actually believe.

Nowhere have you cited any support for your “default punishment” interpretation in Church teaching.

Of course I have; you just dismiss the citations I provide making that exact point.

‘God wills and commands that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it’. (Small Catechism of Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church)

Why, the very law of the Lord teaches us that this rule must be observed, so that we may never deprive another of anything for the sake of our own advantage. For it says: “Remove not the bounds which thy fathers have set.” It bids a neighbour’s ox to be brought back if found wandering. It orders a thief to be put to death. (St Ambrose, Father of the Church)

In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this… (St Clement of Alexandria)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is neither a prophecy nor instruction to civil authorities. It is a warning to transgressors.

You have completely altered the nature of that passage from a command which God himself gave to mankind to exist for all time into a warning to the unjust that he might possibly face execution.

The language of a command to civil authority would have been something like this:

“When one among you sheds the blood of man, you shall shed his blood in reparation.”

When it comes to interpreting Genesis, I defer to our Pope.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

If a teaching seems to flagrantly contradict the deposit of faith and the clear past teachings of the Church, including several popes, then there’s every reason to look at it narrowly. And, in fact, such a teaching cannot be squared with either. In such cases, neither the Catechism nor the sitting Pope’s word can be taken as authoritative or final.

 

[Ender]

The language of a command to civil authority would have been something like this:

“ When one among you sheds the blood of man, you shall shed his blood in reparation. ”

Something like this then?

Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place where the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills someone by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. (Ex 21:12-14)

When it comes to interpreting Genesis, I defer to our Pope.

That might be a good plan if the pope had given his interpretation of Genesis, but since he hasn’t there is nothing to which to defer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The language of a command to civil authority would have been something like this:

“ When one among you sheds the blood of man, you shall shed his blood in reparation. ”

Something like this then?

Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place where the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills someone by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. (Ex 21:12-14)

As long as we are cherry-picking scripture I will point out that scripture also says that one caught in the act of adultery should be stoned. That is why I defer to current teaching and do not try to deduce it myself from scripture.

When it comes to interpreting Genesis, I defer to our Pope.

That might be a good plan if the pope had given his interpretation of Genesis, but since he hasn’t there is nothing to which to defer.

The deference I speak of is the preference of not applying the death penalty. It implies a different interpretation of Genesis even if it does not mention Genesis.

 

[Maximus1]

That is the argument used for those who continue to think Christianity is consistent with slavery.
It was OK in the past as precedent for today.
Jesus addresses this head on with ," putting your wife away" Moses bill of divorce. Jesus reminds ," It was not always this way." And, Moses law was the practical, I times when men’s hearts were hard.
This tells me, history is intended as a restoration from the fall. And this restoration comes in the form of a fuller meaning of HUMAN DIGNITY.
I see nothing of value in retaining vestiges of the fall.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

The death penalty issue actually involves two distinct but overlapping questions. First, a morality question: what is good vs. what is evil? And both the Bible and the Church have said, continuously, that the death penalty is moral, if guilt is properly determined, and if not inhumanely applied. (Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent III, Professio fidei Waldensibus praescripta {Denzinger-Hunermann 795}; Summa Theologica IIa-IIae, q. 64, a. 3, Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4; Pius XII, Address to Catholic jurists on December 5, 1954). The pope did not – because he cannot – decide that what had been morally permissible for thousands of years, now is not. He can’t do it, because no one can. Only God determines good and evil.

The second question is a public-policy one: working from what is morally acceptable (the prior question), now we ask: what is a wise, prudent way to go forward as a society in our particular time and circumstances? Only this latter issue is subject to change with the times, whether by Pope Francis, or any other pope. There have been Popes who opposed the use of the death penalty before (Pope St Leo I, Pope St Nicholas I, Pope St John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI).

The Church has not taught that the state must use the death penalty (that went out with the mosaic law) but that it may impose the death penalty on malefactors if it is necessary to do so, after a fair trial, the same way a surgeon can amputate a diseased limb to protect the body (to use the anology of St Thomas Aquinas). The Pope is within his rights to teach that if a limb can be treated and cured, it should not be amputated and amputation in such an event would do harm to the body (i.e show disregard for the dignity of life). This makes sense in theory because you do not hack off limbs from the body except as a last resort. However the Pope cannot teach that amputation is always and under all circumstances wrong in and of itself.

Here’s some more helpful reading on the issue:
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/cappunsh.html

 

[Ender]

As long as we are cherry-picking scripture I will point out that scripture also says that one caught in the act of adultery should be stoned. That is why I defer to current teaching and do not try to deduce it myself from scripture.

I see. You rejected the plain meaning of Gn 9:5-6 because God didn’t address it directly to a government, and when I find another passage where God addressed it exactly as you insisted you reject it because, well, we just can never know what scripture really means anyway. It’s just that “If this, then that” doesn’t really lend itself to too many different interpretations.

As for “cherry-picking”, you fling that charge rather promiscuously so let’s see how appropriate it is in this case. Here’s what it means:

the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

I’ll provide citations to show my earlier comment wasn’t a one-off and you can look for any passage that contradicts it, and we’ll see whose position is better supported.

Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death. (Lv 24:17)

That fault deserves death, and he will be held to account for it. (Nm 15:31)

But if someone at enmity with another lies in wait and attacks and takes the life of that person, and flees into one of these cities, then the elders of the killer’s city shall send to have the culprit taken from there and handed over to the avenger of blood to be put to death. Show no pity… (Deut 19:11-13)

I can support my claims; can you support yours?

The deference I speak of is the preference of not applying the death penalty. It implies a different interpretation of Genesis even if it does not mention Genesis.

Your position depends on claiming both that an If-Then statement is incomprehensible as well as the ability to intuit the interpretation of a passage that is neither mentioned nor referenced simply because the topic is common. Words begin to lose meaning in such circumstances

 

[Ender]

The Church has not taught that the state must use the death penalty (that went out with the mosaic law) but that it may impose the death penalty on malefactors if it is necessary to do so

I agree with your other comments, just not so much with this one. Is it your sense that Gn 9:5-6 is in any significant way different than the citations from Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? It is one thing to argue that (all) of Mosaic law was abrogated, but quite another to suggest that the same is true of the Noahic covenant.

I actually find the words “must” and “necessary” ambiguous in that they leave an awful lot undefined as to what necessitates that it must be used.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As long as we are cherry-picking scripture I will point out that scripture also says that one caught in the act of adultery should be stoned. That is why I defer to current teaching and do not try to deduce it myself from scripture.

I see. You rejected the plain meaning of Gn 9:5-6 because God didn’t address it directly to a government, and when I find another passage where God addressed it exactly as you insisted you reject it because, well, we just can never know what scripture really means anyway. It’s just that “If this, then that” doesn’t really lend itself to too many different interpretations.

The meaning of Leviticus 20:10 is just as plain as the meaning of Ex 21:12-14. Yet the Church now interprets Leviticus to mean other than its plain meaning. So why not Exodus as well?

As for “cherry-picking”, you fling that charge rather promiscuously so let’s see how appropriate it is in this case. Here’s what it means:

the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

I’ll provide citations to show my earlier comment wasn’t a one-off and you can look for any passage that contradicts it, and we’ll see whose position is better supported.

I don’t have the time to do an exhaustive search of the bible for all passages that support mercy vs. punishment, so such a contest would not prove anything other than who has more time on his hands.

Ender:

LeafByNiggle:

The deference I speak of is the preference of not applying the death penalty. It implies a different interpretation of Genesis even if it does not mention Genesis.

Your position depends on claiming both that an If-Then statement is incomprehensible as well as the ability to intuit the interpretation of a passage that is neither mentioned nor referenced simply because the topic is common. Words begin to lose meaning in such circumstances

No, it depends only on faith in the Pope.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

That’s a counterargument that pretty much puts everything the Church has ever taught up for future revision. The Church never taught that slavery was okay … though where it was a brute fact of a society, She had practical things to say to people caught up in it. It’s certainly good for human dignity that it’s gone.

However, getting rid of capital punishment diminishes human dignity. It reduces human life to something worthless enough that something less than another human life can requite its loss. To answer a life with something less than a life is an insult and a blasphemy, one tantamount to desecration of the dead. Don’t even dare to pretend that such obscenities come out of any concern for “human dignity.”

 

[Elf01]

However, getting rid of capital punishment diminishes human dignity. It reduces human life to something worthless enough that something less than another human life can requite its loss. To answer a life with something less than a life is an insult and a blasphemy, one tantamount to desecration of the dead. Don’t even dare to pretend that such obscenities come out of any concern for “human dignity.”

Or shows that life is so valuable that even those who have committed the most henious acts don’t lose that right.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

No. If it’s not worth a life in return, then it’s dross–or, at least, getting treated like so much dross.

 

[Maximus1]

I am not interested in pointing out some unfortunate Church history involving slavery. Why? I am satisfied with their present position.
In terms of capital punishment I totally disagree with your position.
You are a retributive justice fan. Frankly, I see retributive justice absent in any of Christ’s own teaching. Eye for an eye was replaced by Christ… The Temple system was altered by a new covenant.
Whether it is love of enemy.
Turn the other cheek, or specifically with the law of capital punishment, ( stoning) he added a wrinkle. Sure, Ok, those without sin are free to engage in homicide.
The dignity recognition is for the guilty, and society. As we take the position we are not murderers. Not monsters. ( A death penalty performed is a homicide on the death certificate.).
This was always Christ’s teaching.
The Churches proper role is one of Restorative Justice. The saving of souls.

 

[Maximus1]

What does that even mean, a life in return? If you toss asecond man into a volcano, you don’t return to zero. The math is minus 2.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Then, I take it, you’re okay with making it legal to remove a fellow citizen’s eye, or to give him a Glasgow smile upside the cheek? If you do think it ought to be illegal, I await your reasoning with bated breath.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Sure you do. In a moral sense, you have reached equity. If, on the other hand, you think a murderer’s life is too precious to take, you’re saying that his victim’s life isn’t worth enough to meaningfully requite.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

Necessity is something that should be left to those in public authority as I understand it.

 

[Maximus1]

I did not say crime should not be punished. If a person looses an eye during commission of a crime, I do not support the state poking the crooks eye out. I do not support forms of cruel and unusual punishment. Or torture either.