It is evident that capital punishment is still in vogue in a few Catholic countries, despite the Pope having spoken in favour of abolishing of the penalty. I wish to know how the New Testament is interpreted to permit awarding of capital punishment for criminal offences like murder.

In the New Law, is the death penalty for sodomy (or other sins of lust, like fornication or adultery) a proportionate punishment? In other words, do Catholic theologians say legislators are morally permitted to write a law requiring the death penalty for homosexual or other acts of lust? Under the Old Law, Lev 20:13 did proscribe sodomy with capital punishment. cf. this post to the CathInfo thread "What Trump policies show he is pro-abortion or pro-sodomy? "

Much of the background for this question comes from comments and answers to this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95127/47250 It appears that Roman Catholicism considers heresy at least capable of consideration as a capital crime which may rightfully deserve the death penalty. Here is part of a definition of heresy from *Catholic Encyclopedia* (1910) : > St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in > men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". > "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent > to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, > therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by > refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, > common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain > points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which > is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy > is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of > truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief > by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by > the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend > themselves to his own approval. An example of an heretic would be a man who was baptized into, catechized in, and confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church and who later, with full knowledge and assent of will, actively rejects and openly refutes some necessary tenets of Catholic truth such as the Marian Dogmas . It is not that each and every heretic must be put to death (nor even should be put to death) nor is such a sentence to be carried out in lands where such an action is against civil law. In fact, the death penalty for heresy was most often carried out by secular authorities at the behest of the Catholic Church. While it is not any longer a common practice for heretics to be executed by the Catholic Church (the last heretic put to death was Cayetano Ripoll on 7/26/1826 for the crime of Deism) it has been made clear that if and when a heretic is lawfully put to death for the crime of heresy such an action is, according to Roman Catholicism, in accordance with the Divine Law and is not against the will of the Spirit. There is some interesting information in response to this question which makes it seem as though the Old Testament could be and has been used to justify the Church condemning heretics to death. Indeed, much Christian support for the death penalty is derived from the Old Covenant. This question is not about the death penalty in general nor it's Old Covenant foundation but specifically regards the death penalty for heresy and how it squares with the teachings of the New Testament. Using an example where the conviction of heresy is clear and uncontroversial and where the death penalty is rightfully carried out (the reader may insert whichever case they feel fits this bill: (partial list here ) where would a Roman Catholic find support for this action in the New Testament and where in the New Testament would they find confirmation that God's Spirit was not against such a thing?

**I understand** that this question is touchy, and I myself wanted to break a hole through my wall when I heard what the Pope said, I have calmed down by God's grace. And I realize that traditionalists, like Church Militant have in a certain sense harmonized everything and calmed the storm. Although other traditionalists like akaCatholic are more reluctant to give the Pope a pass, mind you all of these are indeed traditionalists and not sedevacantists schismatics. **This question is** frankly aimed at Pope Francis more than his revision of the canon, because it seems to me that his perpetual and almost ridiculous record of clumsiness in wording is God's way of restricting him from leading the Church into heresy. I hope this question can raise more awareness and that there will be an adequate answer for this site. **The questions are as follows:** - Is Pope Francis' revision of canon 2267, in view of Trent, a development of doctrine or a change/evolution of doctrine? - Is the revision a prudential judgment or an absolute moral judgment? (This ties in with the first part of my question above, heterodoxy cannot be infallible) - Hypothetically speaking, if the Ordinary Magesterium (fallible) CLEARLY errs, can the clergy or the laymen resist the new teaching in appealing to the Church's tradition? PS: I will not quote or consider the revision of Pope St. John Paul ll as to if Pope Francis' revision is a logical continuity to it because that question has already been dealt with , this question here focuses on the continuity in view of Trent. Naturally if Pope St. John Paul ll and Pope Francis are harmonized, then it only remains to see if both of their teachings can be harmonized with the Church's tradition. **ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:** **The Traditional Catholic "atmosphere" around the Death Penalty is showcased in the following quotes(be indulgent, thank you):** > “The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being > establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a > general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual > for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit > homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. > Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt > not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of > public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that > is, the will of the most just reason.” – (St. Augustine, The City of > God, Book 1, chapter 21) > > ----- > > It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); > and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. > 100:8). …Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, > wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For > this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands > the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to > the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have > it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire > society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and > infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is > praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the > common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. > 5:6). – (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2) > > ----- > > “It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the > magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who > carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should > we condemn 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.” (Pope Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, > Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495) > > ----- > > Condemned as an error: “That heretics be burned is against the will of > the Spirit.” – Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520) **CRUCIAL INFORMATION:** **New Teaching on the Death Penalty (2018)** > 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate > response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit > extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. > > Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of > the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious > crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the > significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more > effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the > due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively > deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. > > Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that > "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the > inviolability and dignity of the person,"[1] and she works with > determination for its abolition worldwide. > > _______________________ > > [1] Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the > Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 > October 2017: L'Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5. **Oldest Teaching on the Death Penalty (1556)** > Catechism of the Council of Trent > > The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates > because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty > and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this > commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is > precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to > protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the > legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty > lives of those who have taken innocent lives. > > In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning > I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers > from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). > > (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

The death penalty is clearly supported in the scriptures (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Numbers 35:30-31, Deuteronomy 17:6, Job 19:29, Romans 13:1-4) but was there any Early Church Fathers between 80 AD to 900 AD who believed and affirmed the concept of the death penalty? > Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the > image of God made he man. **Genesis 9:6** > He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. **Exodus 21:12** > Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the > mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any > person to cause him to die. > > Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, > which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death **Numbers 35:30-31** > At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is > worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he > shall not be put to death **Deuteronomy 17:6** > Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the > sword, that ye may know there is a judgment **Job 19:29** Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 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. **Romans 13:1-4**

This article has a list of people burned as heretics by the Church in the past. Is there any Biblical basis for burning the heretics? Which specific verse was used for the judgement on the heretics, which called for the *burning at the stake*? I guess, this verse might have influence on the method of execution, if interpreted wrongly. > “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do > nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is > thrown away and withers; **such branches are picked up, thrown into the > fire and burned**. (*John 15:5-6*) Couldn't the Church simply ignore the heretics? Is there any command in the Bible to burn the heretics? If such command is there, should we continue to burn the heretics in the Church today?

I am supportive of the death penalty and believe it to be justified biblically, but what was the Early Church Fathers (out as late as 600 AD) view of the death penalty and did they have one? I am interested in learning not just from the perspective of the bible but also of the church fathers as well

A public execution took place in Toulouse, in an officially Catholic state, in the 18th century, France. A Protestant father, Jean Calas, was sentenced to death on the ground that he had murdered his son who turned a Catholic. I have a question about the words, a monk and a Father, in a description of Adam Smith who witnessed this execution (See the bottom of this thread). **First**, a monk usually lives in a monastery he belongs to and remains there for doing meditation or exercise together with other monks. I am aware that there are two types of monks: choir ones who are ordained, and lay /claustral brothers who are not ordained. Can a choir monk leave his monastery and take part in a public execution to hear the last confession from an inmate? **Second**, can a choir monk be eligible to be called Father as a qualified priest? Is there any other specific appellation than Father when you call a choir monk? **Third**, there is an image depicting this execution where a monk or a friar wears reddish-brown monastic dress with a large white cross on his chest. The image comes from the frontispiece of a chapbook published in England soon after the execution. Voltaire also wrote about the Calas affair, disclosing the specific names of the priests attending the execution: “Father Bourges, a Dominican and a professor of divinity, together with Father Caldagues, a priest of the same order, were appointed to assist him [Calas] in his last moments.” The colour of the Dominican robe is usually all white, but is there a type of Dominican robe depicted in the image? Is it a sheer fictional robe invented by an Englishman? ****************** After he had been broke, and when just going to be thrown into the fire, the monk, who attended the execution exhorted him to confess the crime for which he had been condemned. My father, said Calas, can you bring yourself to believe that I was guilty? [III.2.11] Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 120.

In 1974, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), "by a substantial majority, voted to declare its opposition to capital punishment" ([source](http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/statement-on-capital-punishment.cfm)) . In 1980, it reaffirmed this stance in the [Bishop's Statement on Capital Punishment](http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/statement-on-capital-punishment.cfm) , specifically calling for the abolition of the death penalty. And in 2005, it published a longer work along the same lines, called *A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death*. Thus in the United States there has been consistent opposition to the death penalty by at least a majority of Catholic bishops for nearly 45 years. Yet, according to [Pew Research](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/11/us-support-for-death-penalty-ticks-up-2018/) , as of the spring of 2018, a majority of American Catholics (53%) favor it. Pew Research indicates that support for the death penalty among Americans in general has been trending down since at least 1996, so I suspect that support from Catholics has also declined. However, I'd like to better understand the trend. Since 1974, when the USCCB formally came out against the death penalty: - Has US Catholic support for the death penalty declined faster than among the general US population? - Has US Catholic support for the death penalty declined faster than among Protestants? I'm particularly curious because the [*New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.html) is quoting numerous Catholics who believe that [the recent change to the Catechism](https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556/01209.html#IN) will lead to more widespread rejection of capital punishment among Catholics. This certainly seems probable, but particularly so if Catholic opinion has already been following the opinion of its bishops and transitioning toward opposition.

What the heck does this sentence added to the Catechism mean? > In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html What new understanding? What significance? What sanctions? Is this even a complete sentence?

The Mosaic Law's penal system (among others) includes the severe punishment of death by stoning. To be a little gruesome here: it takes a while to be killed in this way, and so there *would* theoretically be *sufficient time* (and *impetus*) for repentance and penitence before God—and consequently the punishment would take care of most or all of the *temporal* punishment due to the sin committed. One Scripture especially comes to mind: >**1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (DRB)** It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father's wife. 2 And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. 3 I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; 5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Question -- Do any Church Fathers write along these lines (the merciful/practical, and not merely penal, nature of the death penalty)?

Can Catholics hold the position that some homosexual (=any sexual relation to the other man) priests should be punished by the death penalty? (What about homosexuals in general?)

In John 7:53-8:11, Jesus condemns fulfilling the Law of Moses when it requires that a crowd stone an adulteress to death. This seems to imply (if these passages are authentic, which is in question) that in some cases fulfilling the Law of Moses is now sinful. Even if this passage is not authentic, there are parts of the Law of Moses that now seem rather barbaric. These laws requiring the killing your children if they are stubborn and rebellious (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), killing a rape victim for not putting up sufficient resistance (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), and killing those who commit blasphemy or believe in a different religion (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:5-10 respectively). Are there some cases where it is sinful or forbidden to follow any of the laws in the Old Testament, now that Jesus has fulfilled these laws (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)? A very good and very similar question is: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/456/to-what-extent-does-the-law-of-moses-still-apply and also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws Even though these are questions that I'm interested in and still find somewhat confusing, in this question I'm looking for additional insights (scripture or scholarly) about whether it is now sinful or forbidden to follow **any** of the Laws of Moses (including the ceremonial laws for which we are no longer bound). Answers meant to address **which** of these laws are forbidden are better suited for these questions.

Note: This question was an honest search for a Catholic view not an accusation or attack. If I had written an attack it would be a 1000 times more severe and to a specific point. The defensive response in some of the comments leads me to agree that I should have specified the question more narrowly. However I had to ask my real question to get the answer I was looking for. I will now have to also vote to close the question as it seems a little to complicated for the stack exchange guidelines. Thanks to the accepted answer, and the considerable effort it takes to provide one. I know how it feels to he on the other end, and sometimes this community gives better quality answers than can be obtained elsewhere and the person making the question can be very ungrateful if it conflicts with their own faith. ---------- I have never encountered a Protestant leader who believed at any point in history that the church should take up arms, acting as a sort of temporary civil power, and engage in military conflict or apply the death penalty to heretics. I'm sure there might be some odd exception to the rule but, in general, Protestant churches hold separation of church and state. Where there may have been any direct official church involvement in any such action in old Lutheran or Anglican or whatever churches, Protestants in general would unanimously denounce those actions, as the church is separated from state functions. Some Protestants think it's acceptable as a 'citizen' to support the government on civil grounds to war, or even to apply the death penalty, but not as a church. At least this is the most common Protestant view. However, I was surprised when I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. It more or less describes it as something that was necessary for the church to do at the time and does not seem to be opposed to that period when Popes led military conflicts and applied death penalties to perceived heretical Christians, even as they took the clear lead. So it really leaves me wondering: Does the Catholic Church still think such things are OK? Is it OK that at times in history, or potentially the future, Catholics will bear the sword and become a civil power rather then a spiritual one only? I really mean **is it considered OK at times to 'take the clear lead' in commanding others to kill people**, as they did when killing people through the crusades and bulls against perceived heretics. I do not mean merely Catholic citizens following their kings or government, but the 'command' of those kings or governments 'to kill.' Does the Catholic church separate church and state or assume it is a state with power to declare war and kill if it seems God's will? I always thought the whole world no longer approved of that, but now am thinking maybe because Catholics can't admit Papal errors they are sort of stuck approving all those ugly things done in the past by their Popes, but am not sure if my instincts are wrong. Maybe Catholics do oppose direct church involvement in killing others. I really am curious to find a reliable answer on this. I would like to know if Protestants and Catholics generally have a different view.

I was wondering who was the first person a bishop condemned to death, caused to be condemned to death and such sentence was approved of by said bishop and who was the first such person who was actually executed, as in being physically executed by another person without supernatural involvement, such as seen in the story of Ananias and Sapphira as recounted in the Book of Acts (Acts 5: 1-11).

On August 2nd, 2018, Pope Francis made a change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding capital punishment. In Catholicism there are various levels of Magisterial teaching , a concept which derives from the document *Donum Veritatis* . Each level of Magisterial teaching requires a different level of assent from the Catholic faithful (cf. Wikipedia on levels of teaching and assent ). Two well-recognized levels of assent are the assent of faith , and religious assent . There is a primary and a secondary question which are closely related: 1. **What level of assent does this new teaching on capital punishment require of Catholics?** 2. **To what level of Magisterial teaching does this new teaching belong?**

It's big news in the internet today. [Pope Francis declares death penalty unacceptable in all cases](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.html) . The Pope made specific changes to the catechism reflecting this. From the New York Times: > Francis said executions are unacceptable in all cases because they are “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” the Vatican announced on Thursday. > > The church also says it will work “with determination” for the abolition of capital punishment worldwide. If you're not terribly familiar with the church's position on capital punishment this may seem to be out of left field, especially if you are an American protestant, where the death penalty is probably most common in all the Western world. What might help in understanding this current declaration is how the church got here. Clearly, many years ago, the church was in favor of the death penalty, presiding over many executions. But today we have the Vatican announcing that their goal is to abolish the death penalty worldwide. It seems to be a total reversal. What are the historical changes and landmark decisions that took the church from that position to where she is now?

The Internet is full of news that Pope Francis has amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church to forbid capital punishment under all circumstances. One thing remains unclear for me, however: * Did Pope Francis indeed declare the capital punishment to be intrisincally evil, that is, sinful under any and all circumstances, even if / when effective incarcerination is impossible? * Or did he (merely?) state that since in contemporary times effective incarcerination is possible, it should always be used instead of capital punishment? That second interpretation seems to be hinted by these words: > Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. However, these words seem to hint the first interpretation: > the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” The distinction seems to matter because the question whether in contemporary times the States can, in all, even most extreme cases, effectively protect the lives of their citizens without capital punishment seems to not belong to the scope of "morals and faith", which is the scope of the teaching of the Church. In particular, I feel, this seems dubious in states where there is war or where the influences of organized crime are beyond control. Context that I still feel belongs to the question: The way I used to be getting this (maybe wrongly) the Church was teaching that physical violence, while undesireable, was a rightful response to someone's unjust aggresion, whether the threat posed by this unjust aggression was immediate (as if, someone is shooting at innocent people) or recurrent (as if, an enemy state is preparing an invasion against us - hence even preventive war may be morally acceptable in certain cases; or as if a Mafia boss cannot be guaranteed to be succesfully imprisoned for a prolonged time because of his out of control influences, so the State sentences him to capital punishment before his men rescue him from prison or a corrupt judge frees him, either would most likely happen if he hasn't been executed already). However, I have feeling, in many cases, including this one, Pope Francis amends this part of the teaching of the Church, saying that physical violence may only be permissible as a response to immediate threat, but never to a recurring threat. Which is why it may still be permissible for a police officer to shoot down a Mafia hitman if in any other case this Mafia hitman would shoot down the police officer instead; but it is not permissible to sentence said hitman to capital punishment even if because of the ongoing war with Mafia rebels he cannot be effectively imprisoned for a prolonged time. Is this interpretation correct?

Human rights activists in many countries where capital punishment is in vogue, have been advocating repeal of the punishment stating inter alia that that only God is empowered to take a human life. I wish to know what the Catholic Church's official views – both for and against – on capital punishment especially in the form of a deterrent against prospective criminals, are.

The bible many times specifically tell us to stone people... Yet, I have yet to meet someone that defends that practice. I've heard many times that this is because the OT is not valid anymore because Jesus have fulfilled it, the problem with that argument, is that then you can argue that several OT-only sins are not sin anymore. I saw many atheists winning arguments calling us hypocrites for not following several parts of Leviticus (that for example says male homosexuals should get stone), and when I ask about it, people tell me that those are not valid anymore because of the new covenant, but for example bestiality (sex with animals) are only forbidden there... Thus if it is not valid, we cannot say to anyone that having sex with animals is a sin. EDIT: Question not duplicate, because I am asking specifically about stoning, not the whole law in 'general', also the answer for that question is unclear on this case anyway, they decide what they must keep, but don't decide what punishments they must keep, for example "adultery" has stoning as punishment, the answer of the other question says that laws on sexual issues are kept, thus stoning would still be valid.