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

Very interesting post, Fr. Deacon Moshe.

Some of what I posted came from an article in the "MY TURN" section of Newsweek, published several years ago. It was written by an attorney who was getting out of the business because of his great disgust for the games being played in the courtrooms, especially the "mano a mano" posturing between the attorneys.

Let me hasten to say that I do recognize that there are attorneys like yourself who have a very valid ethic within the system and who are probably also very frustrated with the way things are. I did not mean to paint with an overly broad brush.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Beseme Ab, We Weld, We Menfes Qidus. Ahadu Amlak. Amen. [In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen.]

I am going to have to agree with Dr. John, FatherDeacon Moshe Zorea, and Lance


The point is that we live in a secular society, and there is (and should be) a separation of church and state. How does one get "punished' for a crime as defined by one faith if they 1) are a non-believer and don't even recognize the faith let alone the law as being relevant to them or 2) they belong to a different faith and have different rules. Asking the American government to enforce religious laws is asking mainly White Anglo Saxon Protestants to enforce a particular religion. As an Orthodox I would never recognize religious laws legislated by mainly Protestant legislatures as being legitimate at all.

(Especially there campaign to re-introduce school prayer. Imagine that, an “interdenominational” Protestant style “Prayer” before class? No thank you, I would appreciate “Puritan values” not being forced on Orthodox children. Why not instead focus on getting rid of the shame of America being the richest country in the world but like number 20 out of industrial nations with respect to spending on education. That is the real crime being committed against children.)

Most of these crypto-Christian arguments for the death penalty have their origin in American fundamentalist Protestantism, or in the ranks of Orthodox and Catholics who used to be fundamentalist Protestants Old habits die hard, don't they?

In Kievan Russia, Vladmir (even breaking with the Byzantium practices) abolished the death penalty to keep the law of mercy. In Byzantine itself Timothy Ware notes that the Death Penalty was on the books but hardly enforced but that “mutilation…was employed with distressing frequency.” I am quoting this to demonstrate that abolishing the death penalty is not a result of some new trend but has roots in older traditions. I am Ethiopian Orthodox and only say this out of appreciation.

One only need to have drank a little too much coffee in the day and, being unable to sleep at night, flip through channels late and see all the phony, well funded Pentecostal “prophets” spewing their political agenda as “Christianity” to see where these types of arguments have their source.

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 find arguments in this vein while for sure emotional still sophomoric at best. People seem to be so "concerned' about the protecting children from child molesters, but they side politically with the people who cut public funding for school buses (in order to give it as a welfare hand out to big business) and thereby endanger kids walking to school to the predatory kidnappers and molesters lurking around the neighborhood. They are so concerned with victimized children and when you show them pictures of mutilated Iraqi children bombed by American F-16's they seem to lose their "concern' with the welfare of children and argue in support of more bombing. That is because the same people (in government) supporting the death penalty are also doing the bombing.

Since people of color are disproportionately represented on death row the system has revealed itself to be biased and racist. Instead of extending it to sodomy, rape, and child molestation, to the contrary it needs to be abolished all together.

A group of 12 white people who grew up in an exclusive white neighborhood, went to an exclusive white school, raised in an exclusive white protestant church, had their parents anti-immigrant bigotry passed on to them—these same people then get to come to play jury in a courtroom. They then get to decide if the Mexican drug dealer convicted of killing the White drug dealer gets the death penalty. Off course they decide he gets the death penalty. But then when it is the same group of people called in to decide the fate of the White drug dealer who is convicted of killing the Mexican drug dealer (assuming that the prosecutor choose to pursue the death penalty; which they don't always do in such cases) then it becomes a matter of “wait a minute.” You see the White drug dealer has a family, he was laid off from his job and could not find another paying the same, he was only trying to feed his family and got caught up in this criminal world of drug dealing, he is not a really a bad person, maybe he should not die, etc., etc., etc.

There was a conference in Canada a couple of years ago featuring panels of 100 people who were all wrongly convicted, were all sentenced to death and lived on death row, and all luckily subsequently exonerated by new scientific evidence later revealed. Chilling stuff. What about all the people not fortunate enough to have strands of DNA recovered from the victim's exhumed corpse 20 years after the crime was committed. They get to fry innocently. They get to die by the wrong judgment of an imperfect jury.

We live in an imperfect society and are imperfect beings, our capacity to judge is tainted by our own imperfection; the only entity of perfection is GOD. Let the Perfect Judge decide who needs to die and who needs to live.

Most Christian churches (rather they be Orthodox, Catholic, or otherwise) are having a hard time even enforcing their own rules on church conduct inside the Church itself. If you can't even enforce the rules of the Church inside the Church then you don't need to be out trying to enforce it for the society at large. Take care of the board in your own eye before trying to deal with other's splinters. Sodomy and Child molestation? First, try and take care of the problem inside the Church before taking the struggle outside and putting it in other peoples' faces. Live by example not by hate politics.

Lord have mercy on us

Aklie Semaet

Ed,

You state:
"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?"

The moral law remains, the penalties for it have been set aside in this life because Christ Our Lord did so. I again refer to Christ's handling of the adulterous woman. The Old Law called for her death by stoning. Yet Christ challenged those who would carry out the command of law. He demanded he who was with out sin to throw first. Also note He asks the women if anyone has condemned her. She says no and He answers: "Nor do I condemn you." He who was without sin and had every right to enforce the Old Law did not. Clearly the moral law remains in force, Christ said this. But he also gave us the New Law and the only thing he demanded is that we love God and one another. The only consequence He ever gave was that of final damnation for those who persist in not loving. He never spoke of temporal punishment to be meeted out by his followers. The Apostles called for exclusion from the community of the faithful for some transgressors, but no one was ever condemned to death. The New Law demands that we love our enemies and those who harm us, that includes the most odious sinners who under the Old Law were condemened to death. That oes not mean we do not imprison them, but putting someone to death may take the chance of repentance away from them. Since we must love our neighbor as ourself, we might have to put them away, possibly for their entire life. However, we must continue to love them and urge them to true conversion of heart. We cannot judge the state of any soul or decide someone is beyond help. Can we measure the depth of the power of the Holy Spirit or his ability to touch hearts? Judgement is left to Christ, on the Last Day. The final punishment handed out for the unrepentant there will be just and complete. We need not worry someone will escape.

In Christ,
Lance

Aklie,

That was probably your best post ever.

Though I can't say the death penalty executed on Hannible Lector would be unjust or unmerciful per se. I still can't disagree with the spirit of your post or the meat of it for that matter.

From my own experience in court I came to understand the [real] need and benefit for quality defense lawyers. As a matter of fact I got myself in legal trouble by opting to speak with the police on tape, figureing - if I'm innocent then what do I have to fear.

I'm no longer so naive.

Fortunately for me though, not only did I have a good lawyer, but I also had a good jury - which is what I wanted people that just wanted to know the truth (actually on a funny note: being a brain washed Jarhead at the time, I would have prefered they convicted me if they truely thought I was guilty. -- I'm no longer that "black & white" when it comes to honor and justice either by the way. Thank God).

Any ways I think we all really know that the only sodomy we don't like is that of homosexual men. We have a big problem in our country with adultery but I never see anyone walking around with signs saying death to the adulteres. Adultery is a sin too.

Well, I've gotten some good answers on this and three other boards. A lot to think about.

One thing to close --

I think that part of my problem is that I sat under a "Roman Courtroom" mentality of preaching for the last 25 years. Protestantism, especially the kind of which I was involved with, has a very juristic view of God as the ever angry judge Who is very ready to send sinners to hell. This view comes from the idea that only believers are the children of God -- the rest are His enemies and deserve to be roasted eternally. Mankind is not considered the bearers of the image of God. We are "wretched sinners" and "worms" (remember Luther's 'snow covered dunghills?') and not worth anything to God unless we are "in Christ."

This kind of thinking is in clear conflict with the description which our Lord gave to us, calling God by the appellation "Father", and not just Father, but "Abba", a term of familial tenderness.

What father on earth DESIRES to punish his children, to see them tormented forever by their wrong decisions, to send them away in exile forever? Yet this is pretty much the picture painted for me by those whom I listened to.

There is an especially nasty brand of this called Theonomic Reconstructionism, championed by such as Rousas John Rushdooney, Gary Gentry, and others which absolutely TEEMS with desire to see the vengeful God of Heaven riding His swift chariot to earth to take revenge upon His enemies. It is predominantly Calvinist in genre. You should read some of their stuff. Whew!!!

(The theme of Reconstructionism: God LOVE people? Naaaaaahhh!!! God gave us the LAW and those who break it are toast. No excuses accepted.)

Well, perhaps someday, by continued reading of good posts from those here and reading of the works of the saints on the nature and scope of God's mercy towards mankind, along with prayer for the Lord to make my heart like that of Jesus, I might be purged of this attitude.

Y'all pray for my conversion in this area.

Thank you for your answers.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Dear Brother Ed,

Well, even in the Old Testament there was a difference of view on the death penalty.

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."

But in the New Testament, Christ Himself was confronted with the question of the death penalty when the woman caught in adultery was brought to him.

We know that, by this time, the death penalty wasn't strictly applied to adulterers any more - usually against the women involved, while the men got off free.

But the Jewish leaders wanted to test Jesus on his observance of the Old Law.

And of course we know that Christ asked everyone present if any were without sin - if so, they could throw the first stone.

To "throw the first stone" was usually a "privilege" reserved to the victim in the adultery situation. Here Christ was offering it to anyone who was without sin.

Christ then bent down and wrote in the sand. Historical commentators have said He may have been writing down the names of all those present who were screaming for the death penalty for adultery, but who had themselves committed adultery . . .

And we know the rest of the story.

What changed? The coming of our Lord Jesus.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Christ is Risen!

It's always interested me that Jeremiah 17:13 seems to have something to say with regard to this. It's just an idea, and it may well be really out in left field, but the text says:

"O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake thee shall be put to shame; those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water."

Considering that a good portion of John's Gospel speaks of living water, when I first read this, it was the scene with Jesus and the adulteress that immediately came to mind.

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, that is exactly how commentators have connected the action of Christ with the Old Testament!

Alex

I thought these Jews were under Roman law? If so this is not an example of Capital Punishment handed down by the state.

We can be against the death penalty, but it does us no good to manipulate Scripture against Catholic theology which has told us and tells us to this day that Capital Punishment is the [right] of the state.

Lord tells us to forgive - what is it 7 x 7000? - but we don't take that to mean we should not have prisons, infact we've had enough violent hateful people returned to the streets to soon as it is. Some how the cardinal virtue *justice* keeps coming to mind. The Lord also tells us to turn the other cheek, but I don't think he intended that to mean a woman must allow herself to mob raped instead of raising the family shotgun and chamering a round. Some how the cardinal virtue *justice* keeps coming to mind.

I still say it is just for a serial killer to be put to death. I don't see the barbaric nature in this, as though locking someone up in a small cell with other men for the rest of their natural life is the high act of civility. I know many people think that there is nothing worst in the world then death, but I think that their can be many instinces where living is the worst of the two roads.

If you are a serial rapist of little girls, and one day let out of prison after a few years in, abduct a little girl, rape her, and then disfigure her by pouring battery acid over her face. You are deserving of the death penalty and society is deserving of protection from you by your riddence in the world. This is just and right. Their are consequinces to our choosen life? Hard answer for a hard life. But I see no reason why under the virtue of *justice* an Afgan Mujahadeen (spelling? Holy Warrior) should be lawfuly subject to death in combat against Soviet invaders, but a brutal person that has serial killed girls above (a case that actually happened in America) should escape legal death by the state. Justice must have mercy attributed to it yes, but justice by the same token can't be predominated by emotions steeming from political correctness and female attributes of looking at the world. Life is hard and some times it requires hard answers. We must stand accountable for our actions. There are a number of mentally ill homeless people on the street who hurt know one but themselves, yet they are on the street because we as society feel they must be accountable for their actions - or for them failure to act in a responsible way.

Dear Maximus,

I hope I'm not manipulating Catholic theology. I'll leave that to Dr. John et al. .

The Jews were indeed under Roman Law and, although they condemned Christ themselves, they could not have Him executed without the consent and approval of the Roman authorities.

That is why the charge of "King of the Jews" was trumped up.

The state has the right to execute malefactors, just as the state has the right to declare war.

Neither actions can be sanctioned by the Gospel, however.

However one understands these things theologically, I have a sociological problem with the death penalty as it has historically tended to be applied to repressed minorities, the poor etc. who are overrepresented in the population of those condemned to execution.

The law is not "objective" and it never was. Only lawyers maintain this position.

Again, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."

Alex

Some years ago I had a friendly conversation with an Episcopalian priest (now he's a Roman catholic priest) about that. He told me that the Church rejects those practices but it doesn't mean christianity rejects the homosexuals as people. I supose that everybody here knows that but what surprised me is what the priest said about Jesus and the homosexuals.
He said that one day, a Roman soldier goes with Jesus and tells him that his slave is very sick and then Jesus helps him with his slave. Well, this priest said that the term "slave" meant partner and that this kind of slaves in Rome where used as sexual partners for High members of the Army.
Have you ever heard about this?
I dont' know if this is true.

Dear Remie,

It is certainly true that there were "sex slaves" in Rome used by the higher ups in the army and society.

In fact, theologians examining the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible have pointed out that homosexuality was often used by heterosexual "high society" types in the Roman Empire, Alexander's Empire etc. as something that set them apart from the pedestrian masses.

The same is true of their eating practices, as we know.

But we just don't know enough of the background of this Roman officer to make that kind of a sweeping generalization, especially since tradition has it that he later became a Christian missionary with St Paul.

This would certainly cancel out a theory like that or else that the officer stopped that behaviour once he became a Christian.

Officers also had their own slaves to do their bidding, tend their property etc.

It is really stretching things to try and make that kind of interpretation.

In the same way, the so-called "Rite of Brotherhood" that was apparently used to establish brotherhood between two males was not a "homosexual marriage" as some have suggested tentendiously.

The burden of proof is on them to ground that kind of interpretation, especially against the backdrop of what the Bible has to say about homosexual behaviour.

Alex

Remie,

What Alex says makes good sense. But yes the Roman soldiers had male sex slaves, they had a particular liking for young boys. Boys that is of the people they would conqure. An interesting tid bit left out of modern day macho military folks that would like to emulate the "glory" of Rome. But given some of the obsession some military types have with making homosexual orientated jokes - one wonders if there is some laten homosexual tendencies being expressed -- or repressed as it is.

Dear Maximus,

Certainly whether we are male or female, we have both gender orientations within our psyche with one that predominates.

Some have suggested that devotion to the Mother of God in history has allowed men an opportunity to feel comfortable with their own feminine side.

On the other hand, there are plenty of societal prohibitions against men feeling at ease with one another without being in violent competition, as in the violent sports, or other relationships defined by a mutual male suspicion and hatred.

And that is certainly wrong. I think men have an equal capacity as women for intimacy, gentleness and artistic/cultural achievement, emotions and activities sometimes considered "effeminate."

We know that babies can relate to their fathers in exactly the same intimate way as to their mothers if fathers would but show the same kind of love and affection for them.

My father didn't and when he had a heart attack shortly before his death, I remember thinking that I had never once in my entire life told him that I loved him.

I got on a bus, a streetcar and then ran to the hospital room to tell him that I loved him.

As I needed him to tell me he understood what I was telling him, I touched him and then he looked at me and smiled.

"What are you so upset about?" he asked me. "That goes without saying!"

But I needed to say it.

Alex

[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Actually men have long far passed women in many of the areas you speak of.

Many people don't know this but, women rarely are the authors of the love songs they sing. It has long been men who predominately have written the romantic love songs. Women don't seem to have the same capacity at romance that men do, perhaps this is because while women energies tend to be spent at critiquing the men in their culture, mens energy tends to be more spent toward celebrating the womanhood of wmen in their culture.

I think men are perhaps greater at the arts of intimacy and artisitic expressions then women. Though I think women are the sex who tends to have a greater capacity at gentleness. I think both sexes are responsible equaly for "great" culture. The fall of either one is the fall of that culture - in my opinion.

But we are different - very much the same - but different in some ways though. Women tend to think with their emotions. All reactions and responses are in utter governince of their emotions. Men think much more with reason and logic - well that amount that is left over after ego and pride are taken out of the way.