Should the jurors consider that in the case of the Boston marathon bomber, a death penalty sentence would be less severe than a life imprisonment one?

[Ender]

There is not one bit of evidence that Christ ever sought revenge or willed any kind violence upon anyone.

“Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Rom 12:19)
Ender

 

[Robert_Sock]

“Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Rom 12:19)
Ender

Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.o 18If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. 19Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”

When we take what you quoted within context, the picture changes.

 

[meltzerboy]

The church has always recognized that there could be prudential reasons making the application of capital punishment unwise, however there is nothing in church doctrine that makes it immoral.

Ender

However, since it is an issue of life and death, is it not considered a moral issue by the Church and its leaders? If so, wouldn’t the Pope’s ideas about it and his prudential judgment be informed by his religion, rather than its being merely a “personal preference”?

 

[Brendan]

These are all Old Testament events, under the Old Covenant. Do you have something from the Gospels depicting Christ directly as being pro-death penalty?

Doesn’t matter, it is the SAME Christ.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil

Christ could not do something evil , or contrary to His Nature under either Covenant.

So, do something that Christ Himself commanded cannot be considered to be an evil.

 

[Ender]

Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.o 18If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. 19Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”When we take what you quoted within context, the picture changes.

The full quote does not change the meaning of God’s words. “Vengeance is mine.” As I said: if it is just for God to exact vengeance why is it wrong for the State to do so?

Besides, you have misinterpreted what is being said here. Jesus is speaking of the obligation of the individual; the obligation of the State is addressed in the very next section, which is the beginning of chapter 13. Sections 13:1-4 deal with the obligations of the individual in relation to the State and of the State in regard to punishment.

The individual is forbidden to exact vengeance, but the State is obligated to do so. It alone has the right, as well as the duty, to punish crimes. The passages you cite are irrelevant to the duties of the State.

Ender

 

[Ender]

However, since it is an issue of life and death, is it not considered a moral issue by the Church and its leaders?

The severity of the decision does not make the choice necessarily a moral issue. Doctors make life and death choices all the time but they would rarely be considered moral questions.

If so, wouldn’t the Pope’s ideas about it and his prudential judgment be informed by his religion, rather than its being merely a “personal preference”?

I’m sure your judgments are informed by your faith, but that doesn’t make your judgment more or less moral than anyone else’s. I don’t demean a pope’s preference as being somehow irrelevant, like having a preference for chocolate over vanilla, but neither do I make of his judgment more than it is: it is simply a judgment, and as such we are under no obligate to agree with it and his judgments are neither more nor less moral than those made by others.

Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

The full quote does not change the meaning of God’s words. “Vengeance is mine.” As I said: if it is just for God to exact vengeance why is it wrong for the State to do so?

Besides, you have misinterpreted what is being said here. Jesus is speaking of the obligation of the individual;** the obligation of the State is addressed in the very next section, which is the beginning of chapter 13. Sections 13:1-4 deal with the obligations of the individual in relation to the State and of the State in regard to punishment.
**
The individual is forbidden to exact vengeance, but the State is obligated to do so. It alone has the right, as well as the duty, to punish crimes. The passages you cite are irrelevant to the duties of the State.

Ender

Indeed it does. This makes sense too, because love is personal. Love is only possible in the realm of the personal, on an individual level.
States, by their very nature, are impersonal.

Obedience in Authority.*
1
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.a
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil.b Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.c
5
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.d
6
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7
Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.e