Deuteronomy 22:21 (that ol' stoning conundrum)

[CWBetts]

The New Covenant talks about an everlasting death. Under the law, adulterers would be stoned. At the same time, animal sacrifices could be made for atonement. When people died, they went to an abode of the dead called Sheol. Jesus talks of not Sheol, but Hell, a place of everlasting torment. The Old Covenant was a temporary life, where sin was punished with a temporary death, and atonement was made through a temporary sacrifice. The New Covenant promised everlasting life, brought about through an everlasting sacrifice, and sin is punished with an everlasting death

 

[Shin]

But Shin, isn’t morality about what humans should do? Morality is not “what the punishment is” for act X, but about how humans should respond to act X. And if we base our morality on what God tells us to do, then one could say that morality for us has changed, and he would be correct in that sense, wouldn’t he? God said throw rocks, Jesus essentially said not to. Today, my own moral compass is repulsed by the idea of throwing rocks. No one teaches their children to throw rocks. It isn’t on the radar. Muslims don’t have the New Testament (from a dogmatic perspective), and some still stone people. Yet they will say that they understand justice and mercy just fine. And you’re saying there was justice and mercy in the Old Testament, too. Yet, in the New Testament we are given a moral teaching not to stone.

The New Testament is not saying that stoning is immoral, that is not the teaching of that passage. I gave a hint earlier as to what happened in regards to the justice and punishment of it all, it was not waived, the Father is not being contradicted by the Son. You have to think about what is actually going on there.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But Shin, isn’t morality about what humans should do? Morality is not “what the punishment is” for act X, but about how humans should respond to act X.

Agreed. I think Shin does, too, and was simply pointing out that the Vatican, for a very long time, has not recognized Old Testament justice as “obsolete” in modern times. Furthermore, there is no infallible teaching on the matter, so the Vatican’s present opposition to the implementation of Old Testament justice in society may revert back to what it was prior to the 20th century.

And if we base our morality on what God tells us to do, then one could say that morality for us has changed, and he would be correct in that sense, wouldn’t he? God said throw rocks, Jesus essentially said not to.

Jesus did not say “don’t throw rocks.” He said, “Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone.” The idea He was getting across is that we’ve all sinned and deserve death, so while the Law is just, we crucially need to practice mercy as well, that God might have mercy on us.

He never said, “This law is abolished,” or “this law is wrong.” St. Paul said in the Epistles that the ruler of a country rightly holds God’s sword to bring wrath on the evildoer. Paul did not say, “No ruler of a government should wield the sword against evildoers,” but rather he supported the ruler’s right and in fact duty to wield the sword. Jesus showed mercy to this woman, but the Scriptures of the New Testament are clear that the death penalty is not eliminated, the Law is just, and nations should make just laws- but also laws tempered with New Covenant mercy. There is therefore no morality conflict between the Old and New Testaments. The justice of the Old Testament is permanent; as Jesus says, the Law does not pass away. But the mercy revealed and unleashed in the New Covenant is also permanent, and nations should be motivated by loving mercy when they establish and enforce laws. The full weight of justice is taken off our shoulders when it is restrained by the hands of mercy. The full penalty is the just penalty, and that is written in the Law, but mercy does not call for the full penalty to always be applied.

There are times when the full penalty should indeed be justly applied, for as St. Paul says, the ruler “does not hold the sword for nothing.” But Christianity does not call us to make this the maximum penalty the normal penalty as it was in the days of the Old Testament, because the mercy of God is now fully revealed and unleashed, and to be practiced as never before.

Today, my own moral compass is repulsed by the idea of throwing rocks. No one teaches their children to throw rocks. It isn’t on the radar.

I would not teach my children to throw rocks either. The people have the responsibility to obey the law. Only the government has the responsibility to enforce the law in society. Else we face vigilante “justice” and anarchy.

Muslims don’t have the New Testament (from a dogmatic perspective), and some still stone people. Yet they will say that they understand justice and mercy just fine. And you’re saying there was justice and mercy in the Old Testament, too. Yet, in the New Testament we are given a moral teaching not to stone.

That’s your interpretation, but it doesn’t bear up against all the teachings about the universality and permanence of the justice of the Law.
Psalm 19:

8
The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The decree of the LORD is trustworthy, giving wisdom to the simple.
9
The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart. The command of the LORD is clear, enlightening the eye.
10
The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The statutes of the LORD are true, all of them just;
11
More desirable than gold, than a hoard of purest gold, Sweeter also than honey or drippings from the comb.

Romans 1 lists a broad variety of sins and then adds:

Romans 1:32
“Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

The Law, as the Scripture says, is perfect. It is not revoked, not eradicated but fulfilled, and its precepts endure forever (Psalm 119:160, Deut. 29:29).

Jesus never once spoke against the Law. Who are we to dare do what God never did? If our consciences are troubled by the justice of the Lord, we need to remember that, “As the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). Furthermore, we live in sin. Living in sin, it is hard to perceive the full abominable nature of sin. In fact, it is the saints who hated sins the most. Those that are most pure saw themselves as the most vile, because they saw those sins they did commit with God’s eyes, and they knew they were detestable and deserved Hell, but only lived because of God.

In the end, whether we live our whole lives without committing a sin of “grave matter” or not, we all will die for our sins. Anyone who sins dies for it, for the reason everyone dies is that Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, and we sinned with them, for Adam was the Head of Humanity. Everyone ultimately therefore gets the “death penalty” for sin. However, for some acts, God chooses that time time of this penalty be hastened and they receive it early, that evil be rooted out of his nation (Deut. 13).

God’s mercy and His justice both endure forever, for He is Who He is. Our attitudes and feelings about justice change, especially when we live in a culture consumed in sin and because we are sinners ourselves, thus deadened to the full abomination of our deeds. But God is unchanging, His gaze is without stain, and His word is ever true.

 

[Shin]

We do not base our morality on emotions but on revealed truth. That is what Faith is about. If Faith were our emotions, then we only have faith in ourselves and our feelings, which is not the teachings of Christianity.

God said it, I believe it – that is Faith. Not, I understand it, so I believe it. But, I do not understand it, but God said, so I believe it. That is Faith.

I would say if you look inside yourself, the reaction against stoning if we do so, because it is ugly, not because it is something fundamentally immoral.

But most of what is ugly and beautiful is not a sign that something is good or evil ultimately. God gives beauty to evil and ugliness to good, too, it is ultimately superficial.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank you, CWBetts. I understand the point that you’re trying to make that certain sins carry a death penalty. Are you suggesting that it means that you and I should stone adulterers today? If not, then the reason for that is what I’m talking about.

The Law is just and perfect. However, there are three reasons you and I should not stone adulterers today. First of all, the Vatican apparently opposes the enactment of maximum just penalties right now, and we should do nothing without Rome. Second, the civil laws presently established do not permit such actions, and we are called in Scripture to be submissive to all government authority. We are not the government and it is the government’s job to enforce law, not ours. Third, the Old Covenant is united with the New Covenant now, justice fully revealed in union with mercy. Mercy holds justice’s arm, keeping the maximum penalty at bay, tempering it, making it mild. Sometimes, full justice would very likely be the best thing for society, but mercy keeps this from being the normal penalty and makes it one we should seek alternatives to whenever possible.

Morality is a code of human behavior, and I’m interested in why we are called not to kill adulterers any more. I’m not so much concerned with the death penalty as punishment, as I am with the morality of humans killing an adulterer. Let me know if you have any ideas about that.

Heh. That is a societal change, not a change in justice. Since the end of the Medieval Ages, laws against witchcraft, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, fornication and adultery), idolatry (including heresy) and murder (through abortion and euthenasia) have been repealed. Because of the Reformation, people’s ideas of what is just changed. Enlightenment philosophers and Protestants with varying interpretations of the Bible came up with new conclusions about justice, and the idea has become popularly promulgated that mercy does not hold justice’s arm- it kicks justice out of the room. This is a societal shift. The Vatican resisted this shift for a very long time, longer than anyone, which is why we have popes condemning religious freedom throughout the 19th century. By the 20th century, though, freedom of religion had become the best option out of a bunch of awful alternatives, which is why I feel the Vatican’s call for religious freedom today is good. Though I know they give different reasons, calling religious freedom a principle of justice inherent in human nature. They did not deliver this explanation as an infallible teaching, however, and Catholics are at liberty to disagree with it.

I fear discussion of religious freedom could divert the thread, though, so I’ll try to resist responding to any comments about this part of my views, or explaining either them or their supporting evidences.

But I think my point is very sound that the change in laws against adultery is a societal shift rather than a covenantal shift. The Old Covenant, like the New, remains just (Leviticus 24:8, Romans 7:12), only fulfilled. The Old Covenant also fades, or is abolished, for the true Christian. This is true because its law commands obedience in matters of ritual, practice and civil law. The rituals and practice have been fulfilled in the Church’s sacraments, liturgy and various laws, and in heart attitudes. The transformed Christian loves these, so the ritual law for that person is no law at all! The heart transformation is central to the abolishment of the Law for true Christians, because if they love God in the way of the New Covenant, they’ll love the “new rituals,” or fulfillments of the old rituals, and will embrace them with their whole hearts, minds and strengths, and they don’t need to be “commanded” to go to Mass or Confession, to purify themselves or do any of the will of God. They don’t need to be bound by a law to do these things because they do them fully willingly, out of love! The same with the civil law, such a person would never disobey the civil law (unless it commands them to disobey God), for their heart is ordered to love and as such their deeds will be loving and good, and there is no law against goodness.

The Law, for the humble and contrite Christian, has been abolished. It no longer has any power to command or punish, because the soul loves God and lives love, living according to the commandments of the Law faithfully. It is for the soul that does not live in God that the Law remains in force, because then the national civil laws suddenly appear threatening, and what should have been a delight (the ritual law) becomes a pain in the neck, and a curse to them when they spurn it.

In this way, the Old Covenant endures forever as just and perfect and pure, and yet the New Covenant supersedes it, “abolishes it” in a heart that does not need it because it fulfills it in all its conduct simply by loving God and obeying Him out of love.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief Erikson:

The Old Covenant, like the New, remains just (Leviticus 24:8, Romans 7:12), only fulfilled. The Old Covenant also fades, or is abolished, for the true Christian. This is true because its law commands obedience in matters of ritual, practice and civil law. The rituals and practice have been fulfilled in the Church’s sacraments, liturgy and various laws, and in heart attitudes. The transformed Christian loves these, so the ritual law for that person is no law at all! The heart transformation is central to the abolishment of the Law for true Christians, because if they love God in the way of the New Covenant, they’ll love the “new rituals,” or fulfillments of the old rituals, and will embrace them with their whole hearts, minds and strengths, and they don’t need to be “commanded” to go to Mass or Confession, to purify themselves or do any of the will of God for their lives. They don’t need to be bound by a law to do these things because they do them fully willingly, out of love! The same with the civil law, such a person would never disobey the civil law (unless it commands them to disobey God), for their heart is ordered to love and as such their deeds will be loving and good, and there is no law against goodness.

The Law, for the humble and contrite Christian, has been abolished. It no longer has any power to command or punish, because the soul loves God and lives love, living according to the commandments of the Law faithfully. It is for the soul that does not live in God that the Law remains in force, because then the national civil laws suddenly appear threatening, and what should have been a delight (the ritual law, which is fulfilled in the Church and the heart) becomes a pain in the neck, and a curse to them when they spurn it.

In this way, the Old Covenant endures forever as just and perfect and pure, and yet the New Covenant supersedes it, “abolishes it” in a heart that does not need it because it fulfills it in all its conduct simply by loving God and obeying Him by willingly living love.

I love this truth, and Father, I glorify your name! I love the glorious magnificence of the way in which the Old Covenant is eternal and just, and yet it is abolished for all that dwell in your New Covenant! There is no contradiction between these truths, because justice remains forever, but justice holds no power over those that dwell in righteousness! Those that do not love God will be punished by the Law, but in all that love God, the Law ceases to exist, and all dwell in paradisial freedom and righteousness forever!

 

[SonofMonica]

The Law is just and perfect. However, there are three reasons you and I should not stone adulterers today. First of all, the Vatican apparently opposes the enactment of maximum just penalties right now, and we should do nothing without Rome. Second, the civil laws presently established do not permit such actions, and we are called in Scripture to be submissive to all government authority. We are not the government and it is the government’s job to enforce law, not ours. Third, the Old Covenant is united with the New Covenant now, justice fully revealed in union with mercy. Mercy holds justice’s arm, keeping the maximum penalty at bay, tempering it, making it mild. Sometimes, full justice would very likely be the best thing for society, but mercy keeps this from being the normal penalty and makes it one we should seek alternatives to whenever possible.

Fascinating. So boiling this down, you would say that if the Vatican and the United States government simultaneously approved, an individual would be acting morally if he undertakes to stone an adulteress, as long as we can’t think of any other “better” alternative form of punishment? The way I read this, the only two things that are holding us back from throwing the stones are (1) we haven’t been granted permission, individually, and (2) the potential availability of other punishments. Whether the act is moral depends on whether we have been given permission to do it and whether we have anything better to do.

So, granted that in the United States we choose our laws and leaders and make up our own punishments, essentially giving or denying ourselves permission to stone people, is our society wrong for doing this? Since we were never subject to a theocracy, I find it fascinating that secular democratic government could weigh into whether the act of stoning someone could be moral or not. Why should the morality of an act be subject in any aspect to popular vote or man’s approval? How do we know God approves of our government or form of government? If the government refuses to enforce God’s law against adultery by stoning, are we justified in doing it sometimes, provided that we also show some mercy every once in a while?

EDIT: forgot to say, Lief, brilliant posts on this thread so far. It may seem like I’m focusing on one or two things and not getting the “whole” of your posts, but I actually appreciate the other stuff very much and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I’m just focusing on a few details and trying to take them to their logical conclusion(s), so I apologize if it seems like I’m pulling anything out of context.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Fascinating. So boiling this down, you would say that if the Vatican and the United States government simultaneously approved, an individual would be acting morally if he undertakes to stone an adulteress, as long as we can’t think of any other “better” alternative form of punishment?

Essentially yes, because stoning an adulteress (or an adulterer) is just according to the Law of God. I would like to respond to the “‘better’ alternative” comment you made, though. When mercy should or should not be applied depends somewhat on the circumstances, both on the nature of the crime itself (the age and knowledge of the one who committed it, etc.) and on exterior events (for instance, if a country is at war or under huge pressure, it might have little choice but to restrict crime sharply rather than approach it more tolerantly). This is not about thinking of a better alternative to justice. It’s about the government, or courts, deciding when and how to apply mercy.

The way I read this, the only two things that are holding us back from throwing the stones are (1) we haven’t been granted permission, individually, and (2) the potential availability of other punishments.

Right. Plus mediating factors that might lessen culpability for the crime.

Whether the act is moral depends on whether we have been given permission to do it and whether we have anything better to do.

Wrong. That is not what I’m saying at all. The act itself, as prescribed in the Law of God, is just. The Law of God is a moral law. Any government that established the Law’s civil laws as precepts of its courts would be prescribing just, good laws. However, it is morally wrong for governments or individuals to defy the decrees of the Church’s Magesterium. Therefore, even establishing a just law would be wrong when doing so involves fighting Rome. It would be using evil means (rebellion against legitimate spiritual authorities) to accomplish a good end (justice). In the same way, implementing our own ideas of law as vigilantes is using an evil means (rebellion against legitimate secular authorities) to accomplish a good end (justice). Whether an act is moral or not does not depend on Rome or the government, but defying these is itself immoral (Rom. 13:5, Heb. 13:17), and one should never do evil that good might result (Rom. 3:8).

One other point. The criteria of implementing the law are not “whether we have anything better to do,” but are about when and under what circumstances mercy should be applied. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that there’s a difference between a baker stealing the delivery truck of another baker to maximize his own profits, and a desperate refugee stealing the delivery truck in order to rescue his family across the border in a war-torn country. The law should be applied with mercy, depending on the circumstances.

So, granted that in the United States we choose our laws and leaders and make up our own punishments, essentially giving or denying ourselves permission to stone people, is our society wrong for doing this? Since we were never subject to a theocracy, I find it fascinating that secular democratic government could weigh into whether the act of stoning someone could be moral or not. Why should the morality of an act be subject in any aspect to popular vote or man’s approval?

It isn’t.

How do we know God approves of our government or form of government?

I personally, along with Pope Leo XIII, don’t think He does. Democracy involves establishing law based on the morals that are “the will of the people,” and thus both the morals and the laws often turn out to be very sick and the opposite of what is right. Morality is not subject to the will of the people; it flows from God. And God reveals what is morally sound and true through the Vatican. Therefore law should always, in my opinion, be based upon the moral principles declared by the Vatican. Our laws should not be built on “the will of the people” but on “the will of God.”

If the government refuses to enforce God’s law against adultery by stoning, are we justified in doing it sometimes, provided that we also show some mercy every once in a while?

No. And I explained this above.

EDIT: forgot to say, Lief, brilliant posts on this thread so far. It may seem like I’m focusing on one or two things and not getting the “whole” of your posts, but I actually appreciate the other stuff very much and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I’m just focusing on a few details and trying to take them to their logical conclusion(s), so I apologize if it seems like I’m pulling anything out of context.

No problem, I think your goal is fine .

 

[SonofMonica]

Essentially yes, because stoning an adulteress (or an adulterer) is just according to the Law of God . . . The act itself, as prescribed in the Law of God, is just. The Law of God is a moral law.

Why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to teach differently?

I am quoting from here: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under **any **circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

“[T]he traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

According to you, if a person who commits adultery (sin), then it is just for a human (also a sinner) to kill them. However, the Church seems to be saying that (1) all have sinned and (2) it is only justified to take a human life in legitimate defense. Can you find anything in the Catechism about it being just to kill women for committing adultery or any other sin?

Consider the profundity of these statements:

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely **contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.
**

Can you, or can you not, draw a distinction between the general theological concept of people deserving death because of their sin and people acting morally in killing other people (which is prohibited and defined as a sin)?

I’d like to know what you think of this, which another poster on this board posted a few years ago, with regard to whether God really instructed people to commit genocide:

---

Even though they participated in the sin of idolatry, the women, old men, and cripples slaughtered by Joshua’s army were “innocent” in the sense in which the Catholic Church understands that term when she teaches the moral immunity of non-combatants in wartime. Despite original sin, even unbaptized infants in those Canaanite cities were “innocent” in the same sense. (And please note that original sin is not personal sin: CCC 404-405). If all these human beings were not “innocent” in the sense defended by Catholic moral theology, then the doctrine which the Church emphatically sets forth in CCC 2312-2314 would be total nonsense, and the Magisterium’s claim to guide us in the name of Jesus would be a lie.

Please pay special attention to this condemnation:

“Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide” (CCC 2313).

If non-combatant immunity did not apply even to the idolatrous peoples of Canaan, then it is not a “universal principle.” Both the Church and reason (CCC 2312) tell us that it is. I believe the Church and reason.

---

Lief, in light of the above, do you see how someone might conclude that it cannot be moral to kill a woman for having sinned?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief, in light of the above, do you see how someone might conclude that it cannot be moral to kill a woman for having sinned?

Certainly I can, though I don’t believe this person would be correct.

Why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to teach differently?

I am quoting from here: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under **any **circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

The key word here is in the last sentence, the word “innocent.”

I’ll make one other comment at this point, in addition. The CCC passages you brought up appear to be talking more about mercy than about justice. They are about how governments should apply mercy in the New Covenant era more often than they are talking about the just principles of law. The main parts of the Catechism I see here that differ from this are the ones referring to genocide, for it next to certainly will be unjust to condemn a whole nation to death when you don’t know whether everyone in it deserves death at your hands or not. You’ve probably a 99.9999999% chance of getting it wrong and killing some people that don’t deserve to die. So this is a justice issue.

But the rest of these references seem to be talking about the application of New Covenant mercy. Which I’m very, very glad the Church does for us .

“[T]he traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

The Catechism here is making a profound point. If someone was sinning but keeping his sins completely to himself, without spreading them or their ill effects to others, I would never (and “never” is a word I don’t use often, and only use with great care) advocate the death penalty even though the person might deserve it. For then the sole issue would be that one person, and our goal should be saving souls. That is what the Catechism’s point here is. The Church is trying to save as many people as possible, so it has limited the use of death penalty, at least in our modern era. In the past, it was less tolerant, and this social justice teaching is not among the infallible ones.

I agree with this Catechism teaching, though. I think this is the ideal way of applying mercy in the New Covenant era, in fulfillment of the Law. We should be saving as many souls as possible, and that is what the Catechism here is advocating. This doesn’t mean it would be unjust to execute murderers, drug traffickers, pedophiles, adulterers, or others who destroy people’s minds and bodies, their lives and/or souls, but it means if we can be reasonably sure they won’t keep destroying, then we should definitely spare them under law, and whether spared the maximum penalty or not, we should try to save their souls. The Church is advocating keeping the death penalty’s use to the absolute minimum necessary. Its teaching is an extremely good one, and it’s dedicated to saving as many people as possible, body and soul. That is its purpose, and it seeks to keep the application of justice’s full penalties to the minimum necessary to preserve order.

There’s another important point to consider here. The Church would not here say executing people who destroy others’ lives can be valid (as it says) if this was an intrinsically unjust penalty and the only reason for executions was to keep people from continuing to destroy. If the penalty as applied to the individual was unjust, the Church would not advocate it. Instead, knowing that the penalty for these sins is just, it nonetheless is seeking to restrict its application so that the maximum number of souls and lives can be saved.

According to you, if a person who commits adultery (sin), then it is just for a human (also a sinner) to kill them. However, the Church seems to be saying that (1) all have sinned and (2) it is only justified to take a human life in legitimate defense.

I see this as a teaching about mercy, not justice. It is a call on today’s governments to practice mercy, not exact justice alone. Exact justice would indeed stone the adulteress, but as I’ve said, in our New Covenant era it is not exact justice that is called for but justice united with a powerful sense of mercy, such as that advocated in the Catechism passage I discussed above.

Consider the profundity of these statements:

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

I definitely agree. This is a beautiful statement that the secular world, and so many Catholics and other Christians, need to grasp. I want to grasp it more and more fully as well. I greatly admire the saints!

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely **contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.
**

“Murder” is the key word here. I do not advocate murder.

Can you, or can you not, draw a distinction between the general theological concept of people deserving death because of their sin and people acting morally in killing other people (which is prohibited and defined as a sin)?

I’m afraid I don’t understand your question here.

I’ll respond to the post about genocide in another post. I’m running out of room in this one.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’d like to know what you think of this, which another poster on this board posted a few years ago, with regard to whether God really instructed people to commit genocide:

---

Even though they participated in the sin of idolatry, the women, old men, and cripples slaughtered by Joshua’s army were “innocent” in the sense in which the Catholic Church understands that term when she teaches the moral immunity of non-combatants in wartime. Despite original sin, even unbaptized infants in those Canaanite cities were “innocent” in the same sense. (And please note that original sin is not personal sin: CCC 404-405). If all these human beings were not “innocent” in the sense defended by Catholic moral theology, then the doctrine which the Church emphatically sets forth in CCC 2312-2314 would be total nonsense, and the Magisterium’s claim to guide us in the name of Jesus would be a lie.

Please pay special attention to this condemnation:

“Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide” (CCC 2313).

I have two questions for you on this.

First, theoretically, if one person can be guilty of sins deserving the death penalty (as the Catechism admits, seeing as it permits the death penalty in some cases), can’t three people in a nation? If three people can be, why not three hundred, and so on? Why can a whole nation not be? Besides, we are guilty of the sins of Adam, not stained with “personal sin” from Adam but “inherited sin,” and this is sufficient to cause every human on Earth to ultimately die (Gen. 2:17). So is it really impossible that children like those of Canaan, or the firstborn of Egypt that the Lord slaughtered, would be stained with their fathers’ sins (Deut. 5:9) until they turn away from those sins (Ezekiel 18:14-17)?

My second question is that if the whole human race can deserve and receive the death penalty justly from God, as we see in Gen. 2:17, why should God not have the right to speed it up for some people because of their having committed greater sins than most?

The genocides of God and the genocides of man are very different. The former is filled with perfect knowledge, whereas the latter are filled with ignorance and darkness, for we can’t judge every heart in a whole nation like God can.

I believe that the Catechism reference is talking about all genocides that have their origin in the mind of man. Ordinary men have no way of knowing it’s just to exterminate an entire race of people. God, on the other hand, is perfectly at liberty to punish nations as He wills, something we see repeatedly in the books of the Prophets, the books of Kings and Exodus (among others), the Book of Revelation, and in the Gospels when Jesus prophecies that the Romans will ruthlessly crush Jerusalem because (from a divine point of view) it did not recognize the time of the Son of Man’s coming. We also see countless prophecies among the canonized saints, referring to God destroying or punishing whole nations, just as He is described as doing in Biblical writings.

When God ordered His followers to carry out a genocide through a Prophet in the Old Testament, Moses’ word was sacred as the command of God. The word of the prophets was binding on Israel. Under the command of God, Israel had the responsibility to do what it did.

The poster is ascribing a Catechism reference that is talking about human genocides to divine genocides, but I see a difference.

If non-combatant immunity did not apply even to the idolatrous peoples of Canaan, then it is not a “universal principle.” Both the Church and reason (CCC 2312) tell us that it is. I believe the Church and reason.

While according to the Old Testament, idolatry is sufficient sin to deserve death, the people of Canaan committed far more sins than this alone. In the Bible, they are described as committing incredible sins of incest, burning their children, orgies and many others.

 

[SonofMonica]

I’ll attempt some thoughts at your two questions, but let me make sure we’re on the same page.

Besides, we are guilty of the sins of Adam, not stained with “personal sin” from Adam but “inherited sin,” and this is sufficient to cause every human on Earth to ultimately die (Gen. 2:17). So is it really impossible that children like those of Canaan, or the firstborn of Egypt that the Lord slaughtered, would be stained with their fathers’ sins (Deut. 5:9) until they turn away from those sins (Ezekiel 18:14-17)?

Under this definition of “innocent,” no one can ever be innocent. Not even a fetus could be innocent, since life begins at conception. What use is the Catechism’s prohibition of killing innocent humans, then?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Under this definition of “innocent,” no one can ever be innocent. Not even a fetus could be innocent, since life begins at conception. What use is the Catechism’s prohibition of killing innocent humans, then?

Indeed, no one is innocent. Everyone deserves death, and according to the just penalty of Genesis 2, everyone will die. However, God did lay out specific cases that deserve the “death penalty”, a penalty applied by humans, which puts a person to death faster than they would die anyway. The death penalty is a “speeding up of the inevitable” a bringing on faster the penalty God assigned the whole of humanity for its inherited guilt. No one has the right to take innocent life, unless it be God, who created life and thus has the right to take it away. But in specific circumstances God laid out, where governmental authority and command is present and the person being killed is guilty of the crime God said deserves the “death penalty,” then this action can be carried out.

By the way, my questions were somewhat rhetorical. They were supports for my point that the Catechism is talking about human genocides, not divine ones.

I have not seen anything in the Catechism that challenges the justice of Old Testament Law, unless it be religious freedom, a non-infallible social justice teaching with which Catholics are permitted to disagree, though not disobey. There are many passages in the Catechism, on the other hand, that describe and call for the application of New Covenant mercy, praise God .

 

[SonofMonica]

Indeed, no one is innocent. Everyone deserves death, and according to the just penalty of Genesis 2, everyone will die. However, God did lay out specific cases that deserve the “death penalty”, a penalty applied by humans, which puts a person to death faster than they would die anyway. This is what it is unjust for people to apply themselves, this “speeding up of the inevitable.” No one has the right to take innocent life, unless it be God, who created life and thus has the right to take it away.

But since no one is innocent, isn’t this like talking about a square circle? You’re establishing that there is no such thing as innocent life, then saying no one has the right to take innocent life. Where is the need for such a teaching? It is non-sensical in the absence of the actual existence of innocent life.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But since no one is innocent, isn’t this like talking about a square circle? You’re establishing that there is no such thing as innocent life, then saying no one has the right to take innocent life. Where is the need for such a teaching? It is non-sensical in the absence of innocent life.

Okay, “innocent,” as described in the Catechism, does not mean the person does not share Adam’s guilt. It means the person is not guilty of personal sin, which means they have not committed a sin personally, themselves. They are stained with the guilt of their first father, but they never personally sinned yet. So the term “innocent” there is relative to the state of humanity. The same with a person who has committed many venial sins, but has not committed a sin that breaches Old Testament Law in a way that calls for the death penalty. Such a person is described as “innocent,” in that they aren’t guilty of a legal crime, even though they’ve committed sins God will end up killing them for down the line. They’ve sinned, or transgressed, against the spiritual law, but they haven’t transgressed the Law God gave humans to implement. So in that sense, they are innocent and should not be put to death, but in the former sense, they are guilty and will die. At God’s hands, and we have no right to do this ourselves under the Law He gave us.

Is this set of distinctions reasonably clear?

 

[SonofMonica]

Okay, “innocent,” as described in the Catechism, does not mean the person does not share Adam’s guilt. It means the person is not guilty of personal sin, which means they have not committed a sin personally, themselves. They are stained with the guilt of their first father, but they never personally sinned yet. So the term “innocent” there is relative to the state of humanity. The same with a person who has committed many venial sins, but has not committed a sin that breaches Old Testament Law in a way that calls for the death penalty. Such a person is described as “innocent,” in that they aren’t guilty of a legal crime, even though they’ve committed sins God will end up killing them for down the line. They’ve sinned, or transgressed, against the spiritual law, but they haven’t transgressed the Law God gave humans to implement. So in that sense, they are innocent and should not be put to death, but in the former sense, they are guilty and will die. At God’s hands, and we have no right to do this ourselves under the Law He gave us.

Is this set of distinctions reasonably clear?

Not really. You’re saying that innocent

means the person is not guilty of personal sin, which means they have not committed a sin personally, themselves.

But who in the world is not guilty of personal sin? This is a purely theoretical exercise and doesn’t help determine whether it’s okay to throw rocks. And when did God give the Law (as you define it) to anyone but the Jews to implement?

Also, it seems like you’re unnecessarily infusing the concept of guilt/innocence with the concept of mortal/venial sin. I’m not sure how you’re relating these two concepts in a way that makes sense.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Also, it seems like you’re unnecessarily infusing the concept of guilt/innocence with the concept of mortal/venial sin. I’m not sure how you’re relating these two concepts in a way that makes sense.

I’ll try to explain that in the next two paragraphs.

Not really. You’re saying that innocent “means the person is not guilty of personal sin, which means they have not committed a sin personally, themselves.”

I see the problem. The word “innocent” can be used in a lot of different ways. I was using it in two ways. First, a person who isn’t guilty of personal sin, though they are still guilty of inherited sin. The only such people are very young children, children in the womb and for who knows how long outside the womb. These are people that have not personally committed any sin, however, they still have an inherited guilt from Adam and possibly their fathers. Venial sin, or mortal sin, deprives the soul immediately of this innocence.

In its deepest form, the Law refers to venial sins and mortal sins, to sins of the heart, as well as to direct exterior transgressions of its requirements. However, men cannot judge the person who has not transgressed its exterior requirements. This is the second way in which a person can be “innocent,” a person that has not transgressed the civil law, though they have transgressed the spiritual requirements of the Law. God has not given man the right to kill such a person; this is the second meaning of “innocence” I was using.

But who in the world is not guilty of personal sin? This is a purely theoretical exercise and doesn’t help determine whether it’s okay to throw rocks.

Children in the womb, for personal sin is sin committed by the person him or herself. However, while children in the womb or children who have very recently been born are not guilty of personal sin, they are guilty of inherited sin.

And when did God give the Law (as you define it) to anyone but the Jews to implement?

Gentiles as well as Jews are united in the New Israel, and Christians in positions of power are called to implement justice and do what is right. Jesus says the Law will not pass away, and the Scripture says the Law is wholly just, is perfect and is everlasting. The Scripture never records it being rescinded, only fulfilled.

I know of no passage saying the Law is limited to the Jews, though I do know of scriptures calling Old Testament Israel a light to the Gentiles. Furthermore, people around the world tend to accept the Ten Commandments as fundamental to civil law. However, they reject the rest of the civil laws, even though the Bible calls them unequivocally just, because many parts of these laws differ from how people today are raised. They differ from modern cultural values. The Medieval Christians didn’t see it this way; they based their laws on the justice of the Old Testament Law, though they tempered these with mercy very often. But we are centuries later, in an era following a huge Protestant Reformation and an “Enlightenment,” so our principles are different and are changing faster than the winds .
Isaiah 57:1-5:

Isaiah
Chapter 57
1
The just man perishes, but no one takes it to heart; Devout men are swept away, with no one giving it a thought. Though he is taken away from the presence of evil, the just man
2
enters into peace; There is rest on his couch for the sincere, straightforward man.
3
But you, draw near, you sons of a sorceress, adulterous, wanton race!
4
Of whom do you make sport, at whom do you open wide your mouth, and put out your tongue? Are you not rebellious children, a worthless race;
5
You who are in heat among the terebinths, under every green tree; You who immolate children in the wadies, behind the crevices in the cliffs?

I think this passage is a good commentary on the injustice and rebelliousness, and the sexual sins and abortions, of modern times.

I definitely don’t say anyone has to agree with me about the Old Testament to be Catholic, live their faith as a saint would and go to Heaven. My position on this is a factual point about justice open to dispute; I strongly deny that it is essential to the life of faith.

We can agree to disagree, and I suspect that at this point, that would be the best course of action. I think our discussion is falling to the level of arguing, and I know from experience that when I hit that point with people, there’s no point in continuing unless simply for the intellectual exercise, to practice muscles and stay fit. You’ve hit me with your best and I’ve hit you with mine, and we’ve explained ourselves to one another. I bet we had just as well close down now.

God bless .

Lief

 

[SonofMonica]

Lief, I assure you I’m not trying to argue with you at all. I’m truly trying to learn your system of thought, and I know I am being a bit Socratic with you; everything you say leads to another question. But when I say something doesn’t make sense to me, I don’t foreclose the possibility that I am not thinking hard enough or viewing it in the correct lens (i.e., from your intended POV). I’m only prodding you for the details that I find fuzzy precisely because you’re otherwise providing the clearest explanation on the topic I’ve come across.

While I’ve got a great understanding of the covenant relationship thanks to folks like Scott Hahn and my Eucharistic knowledge borders on the impeccable, my study of “the Law” in Old Testament/Covenant times is comparatively quite limited, especially the study of the applicability to those outside the nation of Israel. Thus, while I understand that the New Covenant in Jesus Christ extends to the whole human race regardless of Jewish heritage, everything I had studied as a Protestant had indicated that the Law was given to the Jewish nation, precisely because they were his chosen people.

What you seem to be implying is that the Catholic position is that God gave his Law and his mode of justice to all peoples, even before the advent of Christ. I understand this may venture outside your area of expertise, and as such you may be reluctant to go any further into the topic. Nevertheless, if the applicability of the Law of the OT outside Israel is indeed what you’re proposing, do you know where I can find more Catholic resources on this topic? Even as a high-church Anglican with a penchant for viewing the Eucharist as sacrifice, we sort of ignored this whole “killing” part of the Bible as a bit “messy.” If I had begun my questions with graphic language about stoning people when addressing my Episcopal priest, I probably would have been met with a lesson in being high-minded and not taking the Bible so literally. Vengeance is not the proper subject for tea, you know. So the Catholic position of being so comfortable with God’s wrath as a literal prospect is a new one for me.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I was under the impression you had reached the point of simple argumentation, which is why I was withdrawing. I may still pull out if I really don’t think we’re going to get anywhere, but now that you’ve corrected me about your approach, I’ll stick with it . It has been a pleasant discussion, probably the first pleasant discussion I’ve ever had with someone about this. Thanks for the clarification about your approach!

While I’ve got a great understanding of the covenant relationship thanks to folks like Scott Hahn and my Eucharistic knowledge borders on the impeccable, my study of “the Law” in Old Testament/Covenant times is comparatively quite limited, especially the study of the applicability to those outside the nation of Israel. Thus, while I understand that the New Covenant in Jesus Christ extends to the whole human race regardless of Jewish heritage, everything I had studied as a Protestant had indicated that the Law was given to the Jewish nation, precisely because they were his chosen people.

This is the more comfortable approach in today’s society, but not the more traditional approach. It’s not even the traditional Protestant approach; Luther was all for executing prostitutes (after one gave him syphilis ), Catholics, Anabaptists, witches and lots of others. And Calvin and the others were much the same. The validity of Old Testament based (and New Testament tempered) civil law was accepted back then, but it’s changed a lot now, and most Catholics don’t hold to this anymore either.

But there are Early Church Fathers like Tertullian saying Gnostics ought to be compelled to hold to Christianity, and Polycarp saying to the Roman authorities, “away with the atheists,” and Augustine calling freedom of religion “freedom of perdition.”

There were Early Church Fathers who believed in freedom of religion too, but at least secular historians (I haven’t read that many religious historians yet) agree that they united in opposing it in the 4th and 5th centuries because this was the logical conclusion of their reasoning during the first few centuries. They certainly felt in basically the way I’ve described throughout the Medieval Ages and most of the modern era, before the 20th century. Now, things have changed a lot in the Catholic Church, but not in infallible teaching, and the social justice rules could revert back if perspectives changed.

You need to understand I’m advocating a more traditional Catholic position, though, an older one than the present normal point of view. I saw a poll once on Catholic Answers as to how many people thought atheism should be banned, and it was something like 8% of the four or five hundred voters. This is also a pretty conservative site. So I’m definitely the minority opinion today. Just to clarify that. And I don’t think you’ll find many Church leaders of today espousing the view that the Old Testament is still applicable in today’s society either. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any, though on the other hand I’m pretty pessimistic simply because I’m accustomed to always being the most disagreeable (opinion-wise) guy in any given group. Because I’m anachronistic. However, if you looked at the writings prior to the modern era, you’d be extremely hard pressed to find any that disagree with what I’m saying.

I just want to clarify that I’m not expressing “the Catholic” position. I’m expressing what I believe to have been the normal Catholic position, a position I still believe in. So if you end up not believing me, don’t worry about it . I don’t speak for the Catholic Church when I express my beliefs on this, and many of them would disagree with me about their history too. Though I know John Paul II didn’t, which is why he led a big act of contrition with the bishops for the “crimes” of the past popes in suppressing heretics. If I lived a century ago, I would feel comfortable about saying I’m expressing the normal Catholic position, in essentials. I don’t think truth changes, and I don’t think they had it wrong before. I think we’ve been washed over in a tide of liberalism, and while the Church’s faith and morals are and always shall be intact, some of its social justice teaching, which is not protected by the charism of infallibility, is . . . well, I don’t agree with parts of it as it stands today.

What you seem to be implying is that the Catholic position is that God gave his Law and his mode of justice to all peoples, even before the advent of Christ.

Here’s a distinction I think we need to draw. I believe that God gave His Law to Israel and more than anyone else, they were called to obey it. They were, and are, the chosen people. However, the Law’s value holds whether applied among the Jews or the Gentiles because it is a universally just Law, a “perfect” Law. God revealed His truth to the Jews and the light shone out from Israel to the Gentiles, who saw it and in many places adopted parts of the Old Covenant into their own laws, for they were impressed by the justice of a number of the teachings. This can be seen in a number of nations that surrounded Israel in the past.

The Law includes commands in it to physicians to wash their hands in running water before trying to cure the injured, to quarantine sick people rather than letting them walk around the camp infecting everyone, and other practical commands that hold true in their value whether applied by Jews or Gentiles. Circumcision also has health value; if the Gentiles applied it, they would have benefited from this. The Law is simply perfectly valuable, good and true, as the Book of Romans says, and it doesn’t lose these characteristics if applied among the Gentiles simply because they aren’t Jews.

However, the Law was for the Jews especially, for they were and are God’s chosen people. If the Gentiles had come to understand the justice of the Law, they would have fallen under its obligations too, and in some places they were and they did, because they mimicked Hebrew Law in their own laws. Anyone who knows what is right is obliged to live like he does. These lands benefitted from obeying just principles their neighbors lacked. To the extent that people didn’t know God’s will, they were protected from part of their sin by “invincible ignorance.”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I understand this may venture outside your area of expertise, and as such you may be reluctant to go any further into the topic.

Well, there is that .

Nevertheless, if the applicability of the Law of the OT outside Israel is indeed what you’re proposing, do you know where I can find more Catholic resources on this topic? Even as a high-church Anglican with a penchant for viewing the Eucharist as sacrifice, we sort of ignored this whole “killing” part of the Bible as a bit “messy.”

I’ve had to piece together what I have from a combination of the Bible study, personal theological reflection, and studying the Medieval Ages, including a variety of popes and Church Fathers. I think studying the Medieval Ages, including the encyclicals of some of the Medieval and 18th-19th century popes might help you on this point, but the problem is, as far as I’ve been able to see, a lot of the writers back in the Medieval era just took what I’m saying largely for granted. So they didn’t feel a need to provide a theological exposition of it, for everyone agreed about them and knew this. Which is a pain in the neck for me, but I understand where they’re coming from. I mean, I keep reading things like popes or councils just saying, “These are to be the legal penalties for sins X, Y and Z, for these sins are abominations,” but back then, who had even thought of such a thing as religious freedom and unbiblical justice? Those would have been novel thoughts, so they didn’t have to fight that much. I need to research it more, and I think the transitional popes might have more detail.

If I had begun my questions with graphic language about stoning people when addressing my Episcopal priest, I probably would have been met with a lesson in being high-minded and not taking the Bible so literally. Vengeance is not the proper subject for tea, you know. So the Catholic position of being so comfortable with God’s wrath as a literal prospect is a new one for me.

My “comfort” is bravado. In fact, I feel very nervous when expressing my views on these matters in the forums, because I know I’m likely to get attacked from many sides. While there is still a large number of Catholics who will argue the Law is just, most won’t say the precepts of its civil law is still applicable. Most would probably say it’s “kicked out of the room by mercy,” which I view as swimming with the tide rather than with the Fathers. Which doesn’t make them “bad Christians” in the least, I’ll be very quick to clarify. This is just fallible discussion of social justice teaching, not a dispute on the faith and morals on which our salvation is built and based. There are Catholics who dispute these too, but they are bang out of line with Church teaching, and on these the Church never has and never will change.