www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Sodomy, the death penalty, and a ??

*hmmmmmm hmmmmm hmmmmm dum de dum dum la lala. Pulling on my asbestos undies before I ask this question.

Okay!!

The Bible, written by the God Who is unchangeable in His moral standards and His view of sin, contains in the Old Testament, certain practices which call for the death penalty: i.e. rape, kidnapping, sodomy, and murder.

My question is this:

What happened between the Old Testament and the New Testament that these things are no longer considered worthy of death by the Catholic Church? What am I missing in the theological understanding of why these things should not still receive the death penalty?

There is a web site out there (wish I had bookmarked it) with NUMEROUS writings from the Early Fathers in which they call very clearly for the death penalty for sodomy, describing it as the most abominable of sins and greatest perversion known to man. They urged that such who were found guilty of such sin should be turned over to the civil authorities for appropriate punishment. (death)

Has God changed? The voice of the Church, which I consider to be the voice of the Lord, has certainly changed in regards to the death penalty for such. Some people, when I mention my support for the death penalty, act as if I am the most ungodly wretch on the planet for suggesting such, even though there is no prohibition in against it in the catechism.

So help me out.....WHAT changed? Why should people now not be punished for sins that Scripture says deserve the death penalty, and for which, if they do not repent (and Romans says that once a person is turned over to a sodomite spirit, it is pretty much curtains for them spiritually) God will send them into eternal torment. If God has no problem doing such, why do we? Romans 13 says that the authorities are the arm of God meant to punish the evil and thus allow the righteous to live in peace.

I be interested in yer answers, now that I am covered head to toe in asbestos flannel wear, because I do expect to git torched!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Sodomy is indeed a sin. In fact it is one of the five sins crying unto heaven for vengence.

Many may want to sweep this teaching under the rug so to speak but this is what the Catholic Church has always taught concerning the matter.

Remember, God never changes but the way in which we present his message to the world must be adapted for every time and place. So while this is still something that is a serious offense, one must deal with presenting it as a serious offense in a polite and respectful manner.

Robert K.

Interesting question, but I am wondering what the impetus is to ask it. (No asbestos undies needed.)

The Jews received the covenant, and by observing the 600 odd regulations of the Torah, they showed their commitment. Christ's arrival fulfilled the old covenant and established a new one: "love God and love our neighbor as ourselves". Thus, the old covenant 10 commandments are still in force because they represent clear examples of loving God (the first 3) and loving one's neighbor (the last 7). How one lives these out depends clearly upon the efforts of the individual and his/her ability.

Something that I find amusing is the fact that what seems to have escaped the old testament folks' perspective, as well as many in our covenant community is the fact that there is a commandment: Thou shalt not kill. So, by calling for and implementing the death penalty for rapists, etc., we are actually violating a clear commandment not to kill.

So, what's the solution? Christ. And His clear distillation of the new covenant: "love God; love your neighbor". Make all your decisions based upon this. And resist all sadistic impulses to inflict punishment on others. Judgement belongs to God.

Christ is Risen!!

Didn't God give the Israelites the commandment to kill in war, and to slay murderers and others?

Can one say that He did not and still uphold the integrity of Holy Scripture?

If one believes that "Old Testament folks" only BELIEVED that God gave the commandment to kill, but they were actually deluded and associated culture with revelation, couldn't one extrapolate from that point a broader method of the interpretation of the nature and source of scripture and say that the New Testament is also simply culturally defined and the life and doctrines of--and about-- Jesus are purely based on tribal historical events, are purely cultural, and not applicable to all of mankind?

Isn't that what liberal Christian and Unitarian scholars do? Isn't that their method?


Isn't the "cut and paste," method of interpreting what is revelation and what is "just culture" pregnant with inconsistencies and isn't this method a regular Pandora's box?

Non-Christians would like to know.

Salaam,

Abdur

[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Brother Ed:

I think the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testatment is the death and resurrection of Jesus! Death puts an end to our abilty to repent. Without metanoia there is no chance for salvation for the individual. Thus, while the actions you cite are still heinous sins, the Church calls the individual to an experience of conversion.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Ed,

Jesus Christ happened. He abolished the "eye for an eye" system. Remember the adulteress who was caught and brought to Jesus. He told those with out sin to cast the first stone. Soon she was left alone with Christ who said simply "Go and avoid this sin." And also remember he said those with lustful thoughts are guilty of adultery, those with angry thoughts are guilty of murder. So if we are going to start calling out for the death penalty for sin we better all line up because we are all guilty. Luckily we are also all given the great mercy of Christ he is ready to forgive us if we repent. Everyone is given the chance to repent until Christ calls them to death and judgement. We do not decide when that occurs. Everyone, sodomizer, murderer, adulterer, you, and I are equal and given the same chance. The Old Testament can only be understood through the lens of Christ. And the Fathers are not infallible. They to must be taken with a grain of salt. Antisemitism was popular with many of the Fathers as well. Should we try expelling the Jews from our nation or try force converting them again? Christ requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves. We must preach the Gospel and admonish the sinner, but in the context of calling them to repentance. We are never to condemn because that is the example Chist left us. That is Christ's job at the end of the ages.

In Christ,
Lance

Fr. Deacon Ed and Lance have made the point most wonderfully. Vatican II talked often about the "Pilgrim Church", a Church moving towards salvation. As fallible humans, we are going to trip and fall. But the ability to get up and keep on moving is the most wonderful of gifts from Christ. It is no wonder that St. Paul remarked "Oh the freedom of the children of God." We are freed from having to memorize and observe a lot of different laws as the Hebrews did; we as Christians have the responsiblity of making our own decisions (though that is sometimes scary) based upon the law of love - - and a bit o' prayer.

Christ is Risen from Death!!

Dr. John, beloved of God --

The impetus to ask it is seeing our culture lost to the wicked while the Church seems to be sitting around playing tiddly winks. (Or in some cases, as with the Latin diocese of Boston, going along with the program in some form and degree of complicity). I have heard so much from Latin Catholics against the death penalty that I was trying so see if I could understand what substantive change took place in God's economia that makes these things not worth punishment If it could be explained to me theologically and covenantally, perhaps I could understand it and accept it.

As for the inability to repent, I think Romans 1 addresses this issue. It seems that there comes a time when the conscience is so hard and the heart so dull that a person is turned over to wickedness and God abandons them (Rom. 1: 24 - 30). Do you think this is possible, that one can go so far astray that NORMALLY (I except an extraordinary movement of God's grace here) one simply cannot do anything but pursue these sins and be the enemy of all that is good.

And again, I wonder this: if earthly reality is a picture of heaven (Heb. 8:5), then was the death penalty a picture of the eternal separation from God called hell? By taking those who are UNREPENTANT and putting them to death, would that be a picture of what awaits them in the afterlife, for God has said through His servant, St. Paul, that there are certain sins which, engaged in without repentance, will kill the soul.

And finally, what of societal good? How many times have we read or heard about serial perverts and molesters being let go to commit their crimes on another child? How is this love to the child? I hear so much about loving the sinner who has done these heinous crimes, but never anything about loving our society and desiring that it be God-pleasing, holy, and SAFE for those who wish to live "quiet lives in godliness."

I wonder if there will come a generation of Catholics and Orthodox who will wonder why this generation sat around wringing their hands while the evil took over.

Think on what this verse is saying:

Ec 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

I think we have really proven the truth of this verse in America!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS Dr. John, I am very disappointed in your answer regarding the commandment. A man as scholarly and eriudite as you should know that in Hebrew, the commandment reads "Thou shalt not MURDER" It prohibits the taking of innocent life. If it read the way you state, then God becomes the biggest hypocrite of all in commanding the Jews to do exactly what He has prohibited.

One, it is my understanding that it can be a bit difficult to distinguish between *what* Moses *says* and *what* God *says*. The Bible to my understanding can't be read like an edition of Time Magazine.

Two, what are we talking about here with sodomy? I hope God isn't going to send people to hell for the exciting ways they have sex with their wives If this is the case, then few will get to heaven. Pluse, the inexperienced don't have good aim any ways.

Three, the Death Penalty in and of it's self is not a bad thing. I personal stand against the Death Penalty but not for the reasons the Church or the Pope gives. I can not reconcile killing innocent people with the sweet benefit derived from ridding society of the guilty. I's that simple for me.

Interestingly, Sao Palo Brazil has seen a hude increase in kidnappings. And not just kidnappings but the cutting the ears off of the kidnap victim and sending the ear piece to the family. The rich are not the only ones being kidnaped the poor are being kidnapped also, being held for ransom as little as $200. Sao Palo is now out numbering Bogata, Colombia in kidnappings, though Sao Palo is probably 3 or 5 times the city of Bogata. I say you kidnap my nephews I'm going to kill you any ways if I catch up with you so actually the death penalty becomes irrelavent at that point.

The definition of sodomy which I have always understood is two males.

I must admit to one thing: I am a bit queasy myself with the death penalty for this reason:

Neither the judges of our land, nor ESPECIALLY the lawyers, nor anyone else fears God in the courtroom. Rather than being places of justice, way too often the courtroom is a place where two massive egos in three piece suits come together to determine which one is smarter and the truth be damned!!

The idea of suppression of evidence (appalling, absolutely appalling that a judge would allow such a thing), swift rushes to judgement so that the DA can get home to Ma's home cooked vittles, lawyers who don't care, and other miscreant activities in the courtroom gives me serious pause over the death penalty.

Here in Pennsylvania, we just had a man returned to the state who was on death row 10 years for a crime which he did not commit. You know what that means? Someone LIED about evidence and the judge didn't give a rat's patootie to be sure that justice was done. The family is considering lawsuits and quite frankly, I hope they go for it and cause major pain and embarrassment to those who would distort justice.

Ideally, a courtroom should be a place where TRUTH is sought for, which IMO would mean that the DA and the defense attorney would look over all the evidence and try to find the truth to the issue. DA's would not try to incarcerate innocent people so they can get that promotion and defense attorneys would not try to play "let's whup the DA's butt in court today"

As long as there is this STUPID GAME in court, I find that I am sympathetic to a suspension of the death penalty.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Dear Brother Ed.
Christ is Risen!

I think it's great you can quote your bible so well, but you are "cutting and pasting" sacred scriptures out of context. Dr. John is right in his explanation. You, my friend, have fallen into the sin of Biblical Fundamentalism. I suggest you read some scripture books by Father Raymond Brown-- he was quite the biblical scholar. I think you will find this article interesting:

Background: Laura Schlessinger is a US radio
> personality who dispenses
> advice to people who call in to her radio show.
> Recently, she said that as an
> observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an
> abominaton according to Leviticus
> 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.
> The following is an open
> letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which
> was posted on the
> Internet
>
>
> Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to
> educate people regarding
> God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your
> show, and I try to share
> that knowledge with as many people as I can. When
> someone tries to defend the
> homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
> them that Leviticus 18:22
> clearly states it to be an abomination. End of
> debate. I do need some advice
> from you, however, regarding some of the specific
> laws and how to follow them.
>
> a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice,
> I know it creates a
> pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem
> is my neighbours. They
> claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I
> smite them?
>
> b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery,
> as sanctioned in Exodus
> 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
> be a fair price for her?
>
> c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
> while she is in her
> period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24).
> The problem is, how do I
> tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
> offence.
>
> d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess
> slaves, both male and female,
> provided they are purchased from neighbouring
> nations. A friend of mine
> claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
> Canadians. Can you clarify? Why
> can't I own Canadians?
>
> e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the
> Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
> clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
> morally obligated to kill him
> myself?
>
> f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating
> shellfish is an
> abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination
> than homosexuality. I
> don't agree. Can you settle this?
>
> g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the
> altar of God if I have a
> defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
> reading glasses. Does my
> vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle
> room here?
>
> h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
> including the hair around
> their temples, even though this is expressly
> forbidden by Lev.19:27. How
> should they die?
>
> i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin
> of a dead pig makes me
> unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
> gloves?
>
> j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by
> planting two different
> crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
> garments made of two
> different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
> He also tends to curse
> and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we
> go to all the trouble of
> getting the whole town together to stone them?
> Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just
> burn them to death at a private family affair like
> we do with people who
> sleep with their in-laws?(Lev. 20:14)
>
> I know you have studied these things extensively,
> so I am confident you can
> help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's
> word is eternal and
> unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
> Kim Peters 87 Maxwell Road Chapel Hill NC 27514 >>
>
>

Dan

Dan-

Not supporting the death penalty for homosexuality is one thing, condoning it is quite another. Dr.Laura is right in saying that homosexual behaviour is an abomination. St.Paul makes that point quite clear in Romans, ch.1.

Stating that active homosexuality is a sin does not a fundamentalist make. The Church has always taught that such behaviour is unacceptable.

Loving your neighbor does not mean condoning any and all behaviour, quite the contrary. Warning one of their sinful lifestyle IS loving them.

Columcille

That is why amateurs should not try to do theology. Kim Peters apparently has no grasp of the difference between Jewish ceremonial law, which is passed away in Christ's fulfillment of same, and the MORAL LAW of God which never changes.

My original question had to do with just this thing and I repeat it: what change in the covenant from the old administration to the new has made Catholic theology see the death penalty as being abhorent to the spirit of love? There was a change in the covenant, therefore, I assume there was some sort of change in God's dealings with mankind to effect a theology which eschews punishment of the wicked according to Scripture.

We, as Christians, are really in a sense "fulfilled Jews". That was one thing which really attracted me to the Byzantine worship and architecture. Very similar to Jewish forms, with of course the fulfillments found in Christ. But I wrestle with the idea that the moral law of God is somehow set aside.

It isn't? Oh.

Well, if the moral law is not set aside, then it is still in force. And if it is in force, then the penalties for it should still be in force also, right? Isn't that why we pray for "a good answer in the great and fearful day of His judgement?" Our violations of the moral law of God carry with them certain consequences. Why are these consequences suspended on earth?

Just thinking out loud. This is a tough one for me. My real passion is seeing the Church being so quiet and the wicked seem to be taking the country by default.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Christ is Risen (in the Orthodox world)!!! Altar Boy wrote: "Ideally, a courtroom should be a place where TRUTH is sought for, which IMO would mean that the DA and the defense attorney would look over all the evidence and try to find the truth to the issue. DA's would not try to incarcerate innocent people so they can get that promotion and defense attorneys would not try to play "let's whup the DA's butt in court today"

As long as there is this STUPID GAME in court, I find that I am sympathetic to a suspension of the death penalty." As a defense attorney I can find no fault with your position. It is always exasperating to me that DA's are often not the slighest bit interested in "who actually did it" but instead in "who they can prove did it". This is also due to modern discovery practice in large part, i.e., the da has to turn over all evidence gathered by law enforcement to the defense. If they do not stick to one alleged perpetrator then they create "reasonable doubt" by the very fact that they sought out evidence involving other suspects. As a result, the way it works is the police present whom they believe the guilty party(s)
is/are, the da determines whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the suspect, if so = end of search, end of inquiry by the police. The da does not want anything to detract from the horse they are riding on in the particular case. DNA is making a long overdue difference in this are because, as not infrequently happens, there is always the chance that the suspect found by the police is not the guilty party and that may be able to be established throuigh DNA evidence, in order to avoid great, front page embarassment, the da is much more careful (and will become more so) about who is charged with the crime. Prosecutorial discretion as to whether to charge a death penalty crime in the first place (odd poor people & minorities seem to be so charged far more frequently than those with resources) is another reason why use of the death penalty (which should not be used in any event period! IMHO) should not be undertaken if there is any concern about protection of innocent etc.. One of the saddest conflicts in America today is the (for most part) inability of those against the death penalty to join with those against abortion for a consistent pro-life ethic. Having represented hundreds of pro-life abortion protestors it was sad that I had to part company with many of my former clients (mostly evangelical protestants and Roman catholics) over the death penalty issue - I am one of the few religious supporters of "Alaskans against the Death Penalty", who also oppose abortion. FatherDeacon Moshe Zorea

I guess the answer is obvious. The OT say death for sodomites. It does say the STATE should kill sodomites. Let each individual Christian fullfill this commandmant.

C'mon altar boy, you name the back alley, I'll meet you there.

Axios