The Death Penalty

[Portrait]

Interpreting scripture literalistically is what Protestants do.

Dear devoutchristian,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

There are, dear friend, a great many Protestants which would find your above remark extremely calumnious, especially our Anglican brethren and also, I suspect, other mainline Protestants as well. It would probably have been more accurate to say that some ultra-Protestant fundamentalist sects mostly insist on a rigid adherence to the letter of scripture. However, the vast majority of Evangelical Christians would, like us Catholics, be able to distinguish between the literal and spiritual sense of Sacred Scripture, although it is perfectly true that there would be controversy over some hotly disputed passages and whether they should be interpreted in the literal or spiritual sense ( e.g. “This is my body…this is my blood”, are accepted literally in Catholic dogma, but are not so accepted by Protestants, who understand them in a figurative sense).

Even the current Church Catechism, dear friend, recognises that, according to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture, namely the literal and the spiritual (CCC, 115-8). The literal sense is nothing more than the natural meaning of the words themselves, “discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: ‘All other senses of Scared Scripture are based on the literal’”. This obviously involves, among other things, taking the words of Scripture in their usual or primary sense without looking for metaphorical or allegorical meanings that are simply not there. When we look at the context of Genesis 9: 6 it is manifestly obvious that they are to be understood in the literal sense and this is precisely how the Church has always interpreted them. Can you adduce any official Church teaching that declares that this text should be elucidated in other than a literal and natural sense? The commentator on the Book of Genesis in the highly regarded A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (op. cit) certainly follows the usual and natural interpretation of the text: “So, too, permission is given to take the life of a murderer: by man shall his blood be shed” (comment of Gen. 9: 6). Was the commentator, the Rev. E.F. Sutcliffe S.J. M.A., a professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew, guilty of interpreting the text ‘literalistically’?

When, dear friend, you look at the surrounding context of the Genesis 9: 6 text, a rule of sound biblical interpretation, you actually find that context to be prose, not poetry. In the previous verse (v. 5) it says: “surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man”. Here animals are to be put to death for killing a man, in exactly the same way that a man is to be put to death for killing his fellow-man in verse 6. Are we to understand verse 5 in its plain and obvious meaning but interpret verse 6 poetically, looking for some “pedagogical purpose” (Archbishop Wilton) which the passage is supposed to convey? One would have thought that the two texts would be interpreted in the same manner, either literally or poetically. This is surely a case of “when the plain and obvious sense makes good sense (which in this case it decidedly does) be careful not to make it nonsense”. Here is an official Church interpretation of Genesis 9: 5 given by the Council of Trent: “So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death”. With respect to Archbishop Wilton, I can see no compelling reason to receive his ‘poetical’ elucidation of the Sacred Text, which is at variance with the traditional teaching, which has always understood Genesis 9: 6 (and 9: 5) in the literal and obvious sense. Sometimes it is very easy to overcomplicate things by looking for abstruse meanings to biblical passages when none, in fact, actually exist.

God bless and I sincerely hope that the above was of some help, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[devoutchristian]

The commentator on the Book of Genesis in the highly regarded A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (op. cit) certainly follows the usual and natural interpretation of the text: “So, too, permission is given to take the life of a murderer: by man shall his blood be shed” (comment of Gen. 9: 6). Was the commentator, the Rev. E.F. Sutcliffe S.J. M.A., a professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew, guilty of interpreting the text ‘literalistically’?

Permission, not obligation.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Can you adduce any official Church teaching that declares that this text should be elucidated in other than a literal and natural sense? The commentator on the Book of Genesis in the highly regarded A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (op. cit) certainly follows the usual and natural interpretation of the text: “So, too,** permission** is given to take the life of a murderer: by man shall his blood be shed” (comment of Gen. 9: 6). Was the commentator, the Rev. E.F. Sutcliffe S.J. M.A., a professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew, guilty of interpreting the text ‘literalistically’?

Seems similar to how one would imagine Archbishop Gregory would interpret that passage.

It’s also sad when faithful and holy members of the hierarchy are labeled or implied as (perhaps not intended) not in line with traditional thinking.

Pertinent to this discussion is this quote from the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, speaking of Cain’s homicide:

9. But God cannot leave the crime unpunished: from the ground on which it has been spilt,* the blood of the one murdered demands that God should render justice **(cf. Gen 37:26; Is 26:21; Ez 24:7-8). From this text the Church has taken the name of the “sins which cry to God for justice”, and, first among them, she has included wilful murder. 12 For the Jewish people, as for many peoples of antiquity, blood is the source of life. Indeed “the blood is the life” (Dt 12:23), and life, especially human life, belongs only to God: for this reason whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God himself.

Cain is cursed by God and also by the earth, which will deny him its fruit (cf. Gen 4:11-12). He is punished: he will live in the wilderness and the desert. Murderous violence profoundly changes man’s environment. From being the “garden of Eden” (Gen 2:15), a place of plenty, of harmonious interpersonal relationships and of friendship with God, the earth becomes “the land of Nod” (Gen 4:16), a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. Cain will be “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4:14): uncertainty and restlessness will follow him forever.

And yet God,** who is always merciful even when he punishes**, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.
*

 

[PeterGStanley]

So I see a lot of 0ld testament quotes here - so which is correct - an eye for an eye or love they neighbor - Justice or mercy?Seems a lot of people here want to stick with the old testament way.

 

[Portrait]

Permission, not obligation.

Dear devoutchristian,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Genesis 9: 6, dear friend, is both a permission granted to man and an obligation. It is a divine command concerning society’s proper punishment of the murderer and therefore it admits of no doubt that it is an obligation. In the preceding verse (v. 5), which I adverted to in my former post to you, God states that He will require a reckoning for the lifeblood of man, whether that blood has been shed by man or beast. Now the language of requirement necessarily implies an imperative and it is manifestly obvious that a divine charge is being given to man to execute the death penalty. Moreover, man’s creation in the image of God also makes the death penalty for murder mandatory, for an act of unlawful killing is laying profane hands on that which is divine. This being the case, God demands retributive justice to “redress the disorder caused by the offence” - “Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9: 6. added emphasis mine); shall implies more than a mere permission, the death penalty is a divine requirement sanctioned by God Himself because of the gravity of the offence and the outrage occasioned by it.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

So I see a lot of 0ld testament quotes here - so which is correct - an eye for an eye or love they neighbor - Justice or mercy?Seems a lot of people here want to stick with the old testament way.

Dear PeterGStanley,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

As I have stated previously, dear friend, the reason given for the infliction of the death penalty is a reason for its perpetual validity; man is created in the image of God and an assault upon man’s life is an assault upon the life of God. The heinous crime of murder does not become any less heinous under the New Covenant, rather it gathers greater proportions with the increase of revelation respecting the sanctity of life.

The teaching of the New Testament, dear friend, regarding the power and use of the ‘sword’ as the prerogative of the civil magistrate carries with it the express warrant for the infliction of capital punishment. St. Paul says, concerning the civil authority, “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; *for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” * (Rom. 13: 4, added emphasis mine). The term ‘sword’ (machaira) which St. Paul uses here is not the weapon that the emperor carried as the symbol and authority of his office, but rather the one worn in the provinces by superior magistrates, who had the authority to inflict capital punishment. Some abolitionists have attempted to evade the force of this passage by saying that the Apostle uses the sword as the symbol of capital punishment, rather than its actual infliction. However, this theory is not persuasive in the context, since, for example, the reference to taxes in verse 6 refers to an authority to tax that was not merely symbolic, but actually imposed. In any case, at the time of writing St. Paul was fully aware that the Roman government inflicted the death penalty (cf. Acts 25: 11 - Paul before Festus, the Roman procurator of Judea: “if I be an offender, or have commited any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die”).

You will also observe, dear friend, that the civil authority is described in Romans 13: 4 as the “minister of God” because it is charged with a function that has been explicitly forbidden to the individual (cf. Rom. 12: 17a, 19). Now in order to effectively discharge this duty the state is armed with the “sword” to administer punishment to the wrong doer, not excluding recourse to the death penalty in the case of wilful murder. Moreover, it is important to always remember, that for all its shortcomings, that the state only exercises its authority on behalf of God. It is therefore a delegated, not an absolute authority. Nevertheless, "the powers that be are ordained of God (Rom. 13: 1) and as such they are invested with the right and duty to administer punishment that is denied to the private citizen.

Since there has been no suspension of man being made in God’s image the whole rationale for the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing relevance and validity, even under the New Covenant. Thus, after citing Genesis 9: 6, our Catechism says: “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (CCC, para. 2260).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This will be my final contribution to the discussion before I bow out, but I would like to leave some final thoughts for you and others viewing the thread to reflect upon.

It should be observed, dear friends, that whilst it is true that the current Catholic Catechism strongly discourages capital punishment it does not overtly condemn it either. Clearly, this it would not do since the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church has been that the death penalty is morally licit and that the civil authority, as “minister of God” (Rom. 13: 4), has a right and obligation to impose it.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friends, that the poison of secular humanism has had a profound impact upon the way that men have come to view the death penalty for murder. However, if we see capital punishment as something unworthy and barbaric in a civilised society or something that effectively dehumanizes its members by officially having them executed, then surely this amounts to an insulting affront to God who mandated capital punishment at the first (Gen. 9: 6). Is not that an ineluctable conclusion to which such a standpoint shuts us in? By holding such views are we not saying that God instituted an unworthy, barbaric and dehumanizing punishment for the crime of murder and that in so doing He was guilty of a grave error of judgment?

Another major obstacle that the Catholic abolitionist must surmount is that if there has been no abrogation of man’s being made in the image of God, which there has not, then the whole rationale for the death penalty (Gen. 9: 6) must be as true today as it was in the days of Noah. Notwithstanding man’s fallen estate, dear friends, he still retains the image of God and so when murderous violence is done to him it is in effect an outrage against God, which demands retributive justice by the murderer having to forfeit his own life by way of expiation. The punishment should always be commensurate with the crime, reflecting its weight and severity - no more and no less. Moreover, just retribution, which has largely fallen out of favour in our degenerate age, is satisfaction of the requirements of justice, a very necessary restoration of a disturbed moral balance - “The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offence. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2266, added emphasis mine).

It may be unpopular doctrine and even sound cruel in our maudlin age, dear friends, but God mandated wilful murderers to be put to death - “Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9: 6). This timeless teaching, which has consistently been held by the Church to be morally licit, cannot be altered by supposedly more enlightened views or maturer thinking, because there has been no suspension of man being created in the image of God. Therefore, whilst the detailed provisions of the criminal code of Israel are no longer binding under the New Covenant, the mandate of Genesis 9; 6 *requiring *the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing validity today. Indeed, the current Catholic Catechism states quite unequivocally, after citing Genesis 9: 5-6,: “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (CCC, para. 2260, added emphasis mine). Blood is “a sacred sign of life” and should never be shed by man’s murderous violence, be it in Noah’s age or our own. If it is so shed the murderer, according to God’s own command, must be put to death by the civil authority (see Rom. 13: 4). The State, as “minister of God”, has been appointed as the avenger of blood and thus St. Paul says that the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain (have discussed this in a previous post). Please observe that St. Paul’s teaching is New Testament teaching, thus he must have been of the opinion that the mandate of Genesis 9: 6 had continuing relevance and was perpetually valid. Whatever, his words (Rom. 13: 4) give a distinct sanction to the ordinance of capital punishment, although other and lesser punishments are implied also, of course, in this reference to highest and severest.

Finally, dear friends, we must not ever loose sight of the whole rationale for God instituting the death penalty for murder. The reason annexed to His command to put the wilful murderer to death is the fact that man is made in the image of God (Gen. 9: 6). Man is a creature dear to His creator and, therefore, ought to be to us as well. As I said earlier, such vestiges of God’s image are still upon even fallen man and so he who unjustly kills his fellow-man defaces the image of God and does dishonour to him. All men have something of the image of God upon them and that is why murder is such a grave offence that must be visited, according to the command of God, with the death penalty. Do we sinful men know better than God Himself in this matter? Is it up to us to say what is a barbaric or unworthy punishment when it was God who mandated capital punishment in the first place? Are we wiser and more humane than God?

God bless and may I wish all contributors and viewers of this thread a delightful and restful weekend, whatever your plans.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[Ender]

The passage means what it says, namely that a precept of right is established.

What the passage says is “shall”. You assert that “shall” means “may” when clearly the two words mean something quite different. There is no rational way to contend that “You must do something” means the same as “You may do something.”

You also misuse the word “precept.” A precept is *“a command or principle intended especially as a general rule of action.” *There can be no precept of rights inasmuch as there is no general rule to guide the application of those rights. “You should do X” is a precept; “You may do as you like” is not.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So I see a lot of 0ld testament quotes here - so which is correct - an eye for an eye or love they neighbor - Justice or mercy?Seems a lot of people here want to stick with the old testament way.

Both are correct. The individual is obliged to forgive offenses against him but the state is obliged to punish them.
Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. (JPII)
Ender

 

[PeterGStanley]

Dear PeterGStanley,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

As I have stated previously, dear friend, the reason given for the infliction of the death penalty is a reason for its perpetual validity; man is created in the image of God and an assault upon man’s life is an assault upon the life of God. The heinous crime of murder does not become any less heinous under the New Covenant, rather it gathers greater proportions with the increase of revelation respecting the sanctity of life.

The teaching of the New Testament, dear friend, regarding the power and use of the ‘sword’ as the prerogative of the civil magistrate carries with it the express warrant for the infliction of capital punishment. St. Paul says, concerning the civil authority, “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; *for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” * (Rom. 13: 4, added emphasis mine). The term ‘sword’ (machaira) which St. Paul uses here is not the weapon that the emperor carried as the symbol and authority of his office, but rather the one worn in the provinces by superior magistrates, who had the authority to inflict capital punishment. Some abolitionists have attempted to evade the force of this passage by saying that the Apostle uses the sword as the symbol of capital punishment, rather than its actual infliction. However, this theory is not persuasive in the context, since, for example, the reference to taxes in verse 6 refers to an authority to tax that was not merely symbolic, but actually imposed. In any case, at the time of writing St. Paul was fully aware that the Roman government inflicted the death penalty (cf. Acts 25: 11 - Paul before Festus, the Roman procurator of Judea: “if I be an offender, or have commited any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die”).

You will also observe, dear friend, that the civil authority is described in Romans 13: 4 as the “minister of God” because it is charged with a function that has been explicitly forbidden to the individual (cf. Rom. 12: 17a, 19). Now in order to effectively discharge this duty the state is armed with the “sword” to administer punishment to the wrong doer, not excluding recourse to the death penalty in the case of wilful murder. Moreover, it is important to always remember, that for all its shortcomings, that the state only exercises its authority on behalf of God. It is therefore a delegated, not an absolute authority. Nevertheless, "the powers that be are ordained of God (Rom. 13: 1) and as such they are invested with the right and duty to administer punishment that is denied to the private citizen.

Since there has been no suspension of man being made in God’s image the whole rationale for the death penalty for murder remains one of continuing relevance and validity, even under the New Covenant. Thus, after citing Genesis 9: 6, our Catechism says: “This teaching remains necessary for all time” (CCC, para. 2260).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Like I said last time - your the spin doctor of the death penalty - and you can print paragraph after paragraph explaining why YOU feel that way and I will never agree with you - so your words are wasted on me.This is obviously a polarized subject for some of us and its going to have to remain that way because I myself am just as firm in my belief on this subject matter as others are in there belief on the matter.I am allowed to to have my own opinion on this matter and I guarantee that I won’t be condemned for having this opinion.

 

[Ender]

Like I said last time - your the spin doctor of the death penalty - and you can print paragraph after paragraph explaining why YOU feel that way and I will never agree with you - so your words are wasted on me.

You ought to take some notice of how the church has addressed this subject and consider whether your position is in accord with what she has taught. You are right that individual opinions are not compelling but if what is presented is what the church has taught then that ought to be more persuasive.

Ender

 

[Fairwinds]

The ancient world did not have the resources we have today to incarcerate dangerous criminals indefinitely…

neither do we, in a safe way.

 

[MJCamp]

beaumontenterprise.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Appeals-court-denies-stay-of-execution-for-Elroy-4597149.php

Elroy Chester to be executed in a few minutes…not sure what to think

 

[steve53]

They would put them in the quarries, or salt mines, or in the galley ships.

If they couldn’t be broken, they were executed.