Recently, I wrote to my bishop calling on him to clarify the Church's stance on capital punishment. I also conferred with someone I know to be quite knowledgeable and trustworthy what the Church's position on this is and he told me two things, "1. Stay away from online discussions, these are damaging to the soul. 2. Tradition upholds the usage of capital punishment. Period." This is why you may have seen me veering away from online discussions lately but it has enabled me to write my own thoughts down on this blog much more lately, not to mention it has freed me to devote more time to reading and praying which have been extremely beneficial for the soul. But I also decided to write to the bishop calling on him to clarify the Church's stance as what he included in our February issue of our Eparchial magazine I believe is spiritually damaging to the Melkite Eparchy. That is specifically the Abp. José Gómez's letter to the Biden administration, which, while overall decent, also included a note that the Catholic Church has in its mission to seek the abolishment of the death penalty. And is this accurate about the Abp. José Gómez?
Let me just say, I put not trust in princes whether they be the princes of the State or the princes of the Church. Even to people who have applauded President Vladimir Putin's advances in Russia, I have been saying to them lately to use cautious optimism. I used to think that Putin was the greatest leader too but he is only human. And my bishop is also no exception to that rule. Even as people tell me he is "one of the good bishops", I always tell them that I don't know much about him so I cannot make that affirmation or denial. But based on the latest exchange, I can say that even if he is one of our "better bishops", the Church is in a very sore position. Lately, I asked him to clarify this statement because I know fully well what the Tradition of the Church is on this position. I showed to him the following citations:
For one, God commanded Saul to kill all of the Amalekites. When the Holy Prophet Samuel confronted Saul about his refusal to do as God commanded and Saul's efforts to keep the King of the Amalekites as his prisoner, the Holy Prophet Samuel killed the wicked king right in front of Saul's face. We know the rest of the story. Saul became possessed with an evil spirit and the Holy Prophet Samuel was vindicated.
The thief on the cross who repented accepted that he had been justly condemned to death. Jesus even affirms that God commanded the death penalty in Matt. 15:1-9 and in Mark 7:1-13.
Pope Innocent I states in ad Exsuperium, Episcopium Tolosanum, "It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God's minister (Romans 13:1–4). What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God's authority."
The document anathematizing Martin Luther, Exsurge Domine, condemns Luther's position "that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit".
St. John Chrysostom states the following: "You see how he has furnished him with arms, and set him on guard like a soldier, for a terror to those that commit sin. For he is the minister of God to execute wrath, a revenger upon him that does evil. Now lest you should start off at hearing again of punishment, and vengeance, and a sword, he says again that it is God's law he is carrying out." Homily 23 on Romans
St. Joseph of Volotsk states: "Were not the Orthodox emperors and holy fathers at the ecumenical and local councils merciful and clement? But they commanded to all, wrote in the holy canons, and ordered to all future generations that kings, princes, and judges commit heretics, and especially apostates, to terrible punishment and death, along with murderers, robbers, and other criminals." Homilies 16, in The Enlightener, or the Denunciation of the Heresy of the Judaizers cited in Met. Hilarion Alfeyev's Orthodox Christianity, vol. I: The History and Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church
This position is further maintained by St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite in Christian Morality when he speaks of the punishments that await those who practice sorcery. "The Sixty-fifth Novel of Leo the Wise ordains that whoever is found practicing magic in any way...is to receive the ultimate punishment and to be punished as rebels against the emperor are." He goes on to exhort this form of punishment recommended by Leo the Wise and other emperors as "just laws".
The Ven. Pius XII further stated, "Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live." (The Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment)
To these could also be added the affirmations of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas:
However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill. (City of God, Bk 1, ch. 21)
Punishment ought to be proportionate to the fault. But in a fault not only is there an aversion of the mind from the last end, but also an undue conversion of it to other objects as ends. Not only then should the sinner be punished by exclusion from the end, but also by other things turning to his pain. 2. No one is afraid to lose what he does not desire to gain. They then who have their will turned away from their last end, have no fear of being shut out from it. Consequently that mere exclusion would not be enough to call them off from sinning. Some other punishment then must be employed, which sinners may fear. 3. One who puts to undue use the means to a certain end, not only is deprived of the end, but incurs some other hurt besides. Thus inordinate taking of food not only does not bring health, but further induces sickness. But whoever sets up his rest in creatures does not use them as he ought: he does not refer them to their last end. Not only then ought he to be punished by going without happiness, but also by experiencing some pain from creatures. Hence divine Scripture not only threatens sinners with exclusion from glory, but also with affliction in other ways. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire (Matt. xxv, 41). He shall rain nets on sinners: fire and brimstone and the breath of stormy winds shall be the portion of their cup (Ps. x, 7). (St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, Bk. 3, ch. 146)
In addition, the Catechism of Pope Pius X states:Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, pharmakous) to live (Exod. xxii, 18). And as for both growing until the harvest, how that is to be understood appears from what follows: lest perchance in gathering the tares ye root out along with them the wheat also: in this passage then the killing of the wicked is forbidden where it cannot be done without danger to the good, as happens when the wicked are not yet clearly marked off from the good by manifest sins, or when there is ground for apprehension that the wicked may involve many good men in their ruin. The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind. (Ibid, ch. 147)
It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defence of one's own life against an unjust aggressor.
But in 1992, an incredible change was made to the teaching of the Church by Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II and his two successors demanded the Church to start seeking the abolishment of the death penalty. But Pope John Paul II knew better than Pope Francis. You couldn't change the teaching by asserting the death penalty was "morally inadmissible". You had to change the death penalty subtlely. I pointed this out to Crazy Church Lady and she sharply noticed this too but this is because Pope John Paul II himself was working craftily and deceitfully to change the Church teaching on this issue. Note what the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the 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. (2267)
If you note, in none of the texts from the saints or the fathers do you see the assertion that capital punishment is only included as a possible punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor". In fact, the Traditional teaching of the Church is to the contrary. There is no assumed reason other than the two following: 1. government, being subjected to God, has been given the authority to wield the sword of God's vengeance on Earth and 2. capital punishment is a just punishment given by the legitimate authorities. As the former aforementioned whom I trust clearly stated, "Tradition upholds the usage of capital punishment by legitimate authorities. Period." Not "Tradition upholds the usage of capital punishment by legitimate authorities if you can't safely isolate them from society".
It gets even worse when you consider what the USCCB's Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states. Reading the following, I was rather horrified at the utter incompetence and lack of awareness of our bishops! Even though the edition was printed in 2011,it's frightening that they state:
Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform....The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of heightened moral awareness. (405)
Say what?!? Even with talk in favor of gay marriage and abortion growing in that decade in which they wrote that they are able to contend that the growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty constitutes visible manifestations of heightened moral awareness? Did the Tsars not have the option of Siberia? What is more isolating than Siberia? Nope. According to the bishops, isolation and the abolishment of capital punishment was only made available recently! The bishops have been clueless for years! The bishops demonstrate in this statement that they have no regard for moral theology unless it concerns the abolishment of the death penalty. Now to return to my own bishop's response to the previous texts I showed to him.
Daniel. I do not have the time to fully address the issue of capital punishment. We cannot accept the Old Testament thinkings about this since Christ came to fulfill the Old and brings with him a change. But it is quite clear from the commandments from the Old and New Testament: "You shall not kill!" Capital punishment is killing. Certainly there may be opinions of theologians, saints and fathers, but the rule is clear. I suggest you sit with a good scripture scholar to properly understand the scripture and not twist its message to what you like or believe. To my understanding the Matthew and Mark texts are not accepting to kill, and the thief on the cross has nothing to do with this issue. Best wishes and prayers, [xxxxxxxx]
I'm going to reason he is within his best intentions but a lot of what he said in his response is plain wrong. For one, he does not actually properly address the issue of the text in 1 Kings 15 in which God commands the slaughter of the Amalekites. And further, he actually twists Scriptures when insisting that the commandment "Thou shall not kill" condemns capital punishment. The texts in Scripture that reference capital punishment use the word muwth (putting to death) and the text that gives the condemnation of "Thou shall not kill" uses the word ratsah (to kill in such a way that one incurs blood guilt, murder). Capital punishment is muwth (putting to death), not ratsah (murder). And I studied Biblical Hebrew. Third, it is not a "twist" of Scriptures when one is trying to understand the Scriptures in light of what the fathers and the saints say! It is an attempt to follow the consensus patrium established by the Lerintian canon to the best of my ability and it is shocking that he would make such an insidious accusation. Fourth, he does not address that Jesus claimed that God gave the commandment that one must be put to death for dishonoring their parents. And what is this craziness of the fathers and saints having opinions regarding the moral law? Did we send to Heaven people who willfully neglected the moral law of God? Um, sorry, no, we did not! Either the moral law is subjected to opinions or capital punishment is harmonious with the moral law as the Church has always taught.
*Earlier, I wrote it was the 1993 Catechism but Pope John Paul II published it in 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment