“As Christians, we are not contradictory when we support the death penalty yet oppose abortion. Yes, both actions will end the life of a human being. But while the death penalty ends the life of a convicted murderer, abortion ends the life of an innocent baby. It is immoral for us to fail to see the difference between these two categories of humans.”

There are some believers—especially some Catholics—who seek to argue that the Christian should be “fully” pro-life and oppose all killing—certainly things like capital punishment, along with things like abortion. Sometimes this is referred to as a “consistent life ethic” and the like.
But is this a fully biblical position to hold to? And is it morally and mentally coherent? I and many others—including many Catholic ethicists—believe it is not. I have discussed this matter before, but it keeps arising. So let me give it another hearing.
Here I want to just look at capital punishment and how it differs from abortion. One person recently came to my site seeking to make the “seamless garment” case. I get folks like this quite often. In this recent case, I told the person:
I—along with so many others—am a social conservative and biblical Christian who fully agrees with the rightness of capital punishment. I strongly differ with those who want to push the claim that we should oppose abortion AND capital punishment. The two could not be more different: Abortion involves the unjust murder of the innocent while the death penalty involves the just killing of the guilty. So there is no moral equivalence here whatsoever. See here for more on this.
What I said there should really suffice, but let me tease it out further. First, as I have argued often enough, killing and murder are NOT the same. The Sixth Commandment proscribes the latter, but not the former. I have in some detail made the case for three biblically and morally licit forms of killing in previous pieces.
On self-defence, see this.
On just war theory, see the many articles featured here.
And here are 23 articles making the biblical, moral and social case for the death penalty.
Second, as I have sought to argue elsewhere, there most certainly is a place for the death penalty in Catholic social teaching. Even some supporters of the seamless garment recognise this reality. See here.
Third, much of this has to do with the biblical concept of justice. Too often folks—including many believers—think that love and mercy somehow trump justice, or are more important. See the piece on James 2:13 above that looks at one such passage they appeal to. But let’s look at justice further.
One brilliant thinker who specializes in philosophy, politics and ethics, and strongly appeals to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and natural law theory, J. Budziszewski is well worth appealing to here. He has penned many important volumes that could be drawn upon, but let me restrict myself to his vital 2009 work, The Line Through the Heart. In his chapter on capital punishment, he writes:
Justice is giving each what is due to him. So fundamental is the duty of public authority to requite good and evil in deeds that natural law philosophers consider it the paramount function of the state, and the New Testament declares that the role is delegated to magistrates by God Himself…
So weighty is the duty of justice that it raises the question whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves, and it does not seem clear at first why not going far enough is better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage, and that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of generosity; why do we not say that both mercy and harshness miss the mark of justice? Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend clemency to all those whose crimes are of the sort that would be requitable by death.
I ask: Is there warrant for such categorical extension of clemency? Let us focus mainly on the crime of murder, the deliberate taking of innocent human life. The reason for this focus is that the question of mercy arises only on the assumption that some crime does deserve death. It would seem that at least death deserves death, that nothing less is sufficient to answer the gravity of the deed. Revelation agrees. As Genesis instructs: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Someone may object that the murderer, too, is made in God’s image, and so he is. But this does not lighten the horror of his deed. On the contrary, it heightens it, because it makes him a morally accountable being. Moreover, if even simple murder warrants death, how much more does multiple and compounded murder warrant it? Some criminals seem to deserve death many times over. If we are considering not taking their lives at all, the motive cannot be justice. It must be mercy.
The questions to be addressed are therefore three: Is it ever permissible for public authority to give the wrongdoer less than he deserves? If it is permissible, then when is it permissible? Is it permissible to grant such mercy categorically?
Read More
Related Posts:

You cannot worship both God and false gods.  Joshua is clear that choosing to serve false gods means you have determined that it is evil to serve God (Joshua 24:15).  Serving no god is not an option, so there really is no such thing as an atheist.  Everyone worships, whether the true God, idols, the ideas they represent, or self (Romans 1:18ff).  Worship of idols is incompatible with worship of God, which Joshua makes clear by giving the same reason God gave in the second commandment: God’s jealousy (Joshua 24:19 cf. Exodus 20:5).  

Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD….You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good.
-Joshua 24:14-15,19-20, ESV
Last time, we looked at Israel’s tumultuous beginning culminating in Judah’s Adam-like failure when tempted and Joseph’s Christlike success when tempted.  After the conquest of Canaan five centuries later, Joshua tells them to choose whether they will serve God or idols.  Joshua said that he and his house would serve God, so he was exhorting Israel as families not individuals.  Worship, whether of God or idols, begins at home…and there are many American “Christian” households that have chosen the wrong gods.
It Begins at Home
God builds His Kingdom primarily through families and has always dealt with His people as families.  His covenants are corporate, made with households rather than individuals.  Even the tribes of Israel were essentially households of households.  The ultimate blessing of the Abrahamic covenant was that all of the families of the world would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3, 28:14).  The family, not the church, has always been the center of worship.  The Westminster Divines understood this and devoted an entire document to family worship, but many churches today do not.
It is unsurprising then that Scripture’s first reference to false gods comes in the context of a family: when Jacob fled Laban, Rachel stole the household gods (Genesis 31:19) and hid them from him by sitting on them (Genesis 31:34-35).  Her claim that she was menstruating at the time would have caused Jewish readers to see that Rachel was essentially defiling the idols.  Thus begins a theme found throughout Scripture: mockery of idols and their worshippers.  We should laugh at how these idols were powerless to avoid being stolen, sat on, and defiled.  We see the same with the plagues of Exodus targeting specific Egyptian deities.  We see it when the idol of Dagon fell prostrate before the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 5:3-4).  We see it when Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:26-29) and when the ruins of Baal’s temple were used as a latrine (2 Kings 10:27).  And we see it when Jesus picked a longstanding hotbed of idolatry and demonic activity to proclaim: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).  Through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him” (Colossians 2:15). Isaiah illustrates the absurdity of idol worship by describing a man cutting a log in half, burning half in the fire, and carving the other half into an idol (Isaiah 44:10-17).  Jeremiah calls them “stupid and foolish” (Jeremiah 17:8).  The psalms are equally harsh: “Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them” (Psalm 115:8 cf. 135:18).  Scripture is clear that false gods are powerless, so it is absurd to worship them. This means that a man who leads his family to worship idols is a fool who makes his family into fools as well.  As goes the man, so goes the family. While Elkanah’s home was tumultuous, he led his family in the true worship of God.  However, the prevalence and persistence of golden calves and high places shows that he was in the minority.  Most men followed Laban, paying lip service to God while betraying Him by worshipping false gods.
No Room for Pluralism
That brings up another important point: you cannot worship both God and false gods.  Joshua is clear that choosing to serve false gods means you have determined that it is evil to serve God (Joshua 24:15).  Serving no god is not an option, so there really is no such thing as an atheist.  Everyone worships, whether the true God, idols, the ideas they represent, or self (Romans 1:18ff).  Worship of idols is incompatible with worship of God, which Joshua makes clear by giving the same reason God gave in the second commandment: God’s jealousy (Joshua 24:19 cf. Exodus 20:5).  Unlike sinful envy, God’s jealousy is “a zeal that arises when sin threatens a covenant relationship”.[1]  Trying to worship God while also worshipping idols is like a wife saying she is faithful to her husband while regularly sleeping with other men.  There is no room for an open relationship between God and His covenant people, so idolatry is often described as adultery.  Therefore, there is no room for religious pluralism.  We don’t know whether Rachel stole the idols because she was trying to be a pluralist or for some other reason such as spite against her father, but we do know that Israel tried to worship God and false gods throughout their history.  As we saw here, while the southern kingdom of Judah was sinning by selectively obeying God, the northern kingdom of Israel was attempting pluralism: “Come to Bethel, and transgress; to Gilgal, and multiply transgression; bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three days; offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do, O people of Israel!” declares the Lord GOD”  (Amos 4:4-5).  By trying to worship both God and idols, they were blaspheming God just as a wife greatly dishonors her husband when he is just one of the men she sleeps with.  Religious pluralism is and has always been abhorrent blasphemy against God, so every man is exhorted to choose whether he and his family will worship God or idols—he cannot worship both.
Today’s Household Gods
I have previously examined various idols in our culture.  Even faithful churches that abhor those idols likely have families that worship them at home then come to church on Sunday and fail to see the hypocrisy.  Idols are myriad and often subtle, but some are made blatantly obvious by a popular yard sign that declares: “In this house we believe: black lives matter, women’s rights are human rights, no human is illegal, science is real, love is love, kindness is everything”.  This is a clear acknowledgement that worship begins at home, and its credal structure proves that it is religious.  What one must believe in order to be a Christian is summed up in the historic creeds—the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Chalcedon Definition.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Before I started this outreach, I thought my struggle would be with the secular gay community. No, that has not been the battle front. There is a gay civil war in the Church. Those that stand up for truth are few and ill-equipped; we have almost no support from the hierarchy. Meanwhile the gay-affirmative side controls entire parishes and LGBT ministries in almost every major archdiocese…

Joseph Sciambra is an angry man. He has plumbed the depths of the homosexual subculture. He has suffered for his involvement in promiscuity, pornography, drug abuse and self-abuse. He is still paying the price, in physical and psychological suffering. He has watched one friend after another die of AIDS. Now, having rediscovered his Catholic faith and reformed his life, he watches in frustration as Catholic priests encourage young men to explore the same path that nearly led him to ruin, and Catholic bishops refuse to intervene.
In his book Disordered [Amazon carries only the Kindle version; hard copies are available through the author’s web site], Sciambra tells how he became immersed in the reckless life of San Francisco’s notorious Castro district. In sometimes graphic detail he describes the degrading sexual practices that were accepted there — practices that were driven by emotional desperation. (This book will stay on a high shelf; I would not want impressionable young people to discover this sort of moral squalor.) In full confessional mode, Sciambra does not spare himself; he details his own sins. At the same time he manages to give the reader a strong sense of how horribly unhappy he was. This book vividly illustrates how serious sin leads to a life of desolation.
Finally this self-destructive young man reaches a point of no return. His health breaks down completely; he is near death, and not terribly interested in staying alive. But he calls out for help, his mother responds, and he begins the long road to physical recovery and moral reform.
For this reader, the spiritual conversion came just in time; I could not have stomached much more of the gut-wrenching tour through a world of joyless perversion and exploitation. But Sciambra’s story is not over by any means.
For one thing there is the story of the conversion itself. It is always fascinating to see how the “Hound of Heaven” chases down an errant soul. In Sciambra’s case, there is the gradual realization that for all of his life he has longed for an intimate relationship with a man he can admire and trust, until at last he encounters the God-Man who alone can fill that aching need.
But there is more to it, unfortunately. Sciambra cannot forget that when he first began to explore the homosexual life, he was encouraged by Catholic priests.
I will never forget how, during a failed dinner party intervention organized by my parents, the habitually happy priest they invited to set their wayward son on the right path — patted me on the back and said I was doing just fine; I belonged in the Castro with those who understood me.
This was not an isolated incident. On several occasions, priests to whom young Sciambra turned for counsel gave him the same sort of advice: to embrace his homosexuality, to continue doing the very things that were torturing and corrupting his soul.
Read More