“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:

Archbishop Davies, hit back at his comments, saying the diocese would “stay true to the bible’s teachings on sexuality” and reject the “revisionist theology” propagated by progressive archbishops in Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Bishop Davies has been the dominant force in the conservative wing of the Anglican Church for nearly a decade, leading the Sydney diocese from 2013 to last year, and was a leading campaigner against same-sex marriage during the 2017 postal survey.

Australia’s Anglican Church has split, with a group of conservative bishops and lay people forming a new diocese.  The breakaway group, led by the former Archbishop of Sydney, Most Rev Glenn Davies, has encouraged those Anglicans who are unhappy with progressive bishops to join the new diocese. It follows the Australian Anglican Church’s decision to leave it up to each diocese to decide whether to bless same-sex unions. So far, three dioceses have decided to allow same-sex weddings. Since then, conservative voices have threatened to leave the Church as they felt it had drifted away from Bible teachings on same-sex marriage. The group started drafting plans to create the new diocese early in 2021 and registered with the charities commission in October 2021. Archbishop Davies announced the newly formed Diocese of the Southern Cross during the Global Anglican Future Conference in Canberra.
It will operate under the umbrella of GAFCON, a conservative Anglican movement, and will not be “in communion” with Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Rev Justin Welby and will cover all of Australia. “I think you’ll see the Diocese of the Southern Cross will have a significant impact,” Archbishop Davies said during the event. “It will send shivers down the spines of some bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia.” According to the charity register, Archbishop Davies, Tasmanian minister Susan Willis, and lawyer David Baker from St Jude’s Anglican Church in Melbourne are the three board members. “For those who cannot live under the liberal regime of a bishop, they can come and be thoroughly Anglican under a bishop,” Archbishop Davies continued. Archbishop Davies will be commissioned as head of the breakaway church. At least seven provinces within the Anglican Communion allow same-sex marriage.
Geoffrey Smith, the Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia, issued a stinging rebuke of the “Diocese of the Southern Cross”. Archbishop Smith described the move as “unfortunate”, and one that would make it difficult to hold the church together. “It is always easier to gather with those we agree with. But in a tragically divided world, God’s call, and therefore the church’s role, includes showing how to live together with difference. Not merely showing tolerance, but receiving the other as a gift from God,” he said. The schism comes after discussions between church progressives and conservatives broke down at the General Synod in May, when the country’s bishops voted down a motion to oppose same-sex marriage blessings. It created an atmosphere of revolt among conservative churchgoers, who accused the bishops of departing from the church’s theological roots.
Archbishop Smith said other voices at the Synod were sympathetic to the conservative’s motion. “It is perplexing that the leaders of this breakaway movement cite the reason for this new denomination as the failure of General Synod to explicitly express an opinion against the blessing of same-sex marriages,” he said. Archbishop Davies, hit back at his comments, saying the diocese would “stay true to the bible’s teachings on sexuality” and reject the “revisionist theology” propagated by progressive archbishops in Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Bishop Davies has been the dominant force in the conservative wing of the Anglican Church for nearly a decade, leading the Sydney diocese from 2013 to last year, and was a leading campaigner against same-sex marriage during the 2017 postal survey.
He insisted the diocese would provide a “more authentic home” for congregants at odds with the views of “the revisionist bishops” after years of bitter infighting between senior clergy. “We signalled these issues roughly two years ago and the revisionist bishops did nothing to back-pedal on their views. “They kept saying, ‘Oh, no the evangelicals will capitulate’. “And we have decided not to capitulate,” Archbishop Davies said. “We believe in the authority of scripture. I realise we won’t have the glorious Gothic buildings that other Anglican Church dioceses have, but that doesn’t worry me.” Its approach to same-sex marriage has led to comparable splits in Canada, the US, Brazil and New Zealand, often involving protracted legal disputes over property rights. Sydney Archbishop Kanishka Raffel, the leader of the country’s most powerful conservative dioceses, shocked moderate church leaders when he offered support for the new diocese.
“The Diocese of the Southern Cross is for the sake of those elsewhere who have been forced to leave their church because they cannot in good conscience accept the authority of those who have departed from the teaching of Christ on marriage and human sexuality,” Archbishop Raffel said in a statement. A trenchant opponent of same-sex marriage blessings, he has otherwise remained silent during the diocese’s launch and refused requests for press interviews. Several sources with knowledge of the church’s split said Archbishop Raffel was avoiding comment on the breakaway to ensure he could vote on future motions relating to same-sex marriage in the General Synod, a national congress comprising ordained and lay Anglicans.
Perth Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy, who is forbidden from officiating services in Sydney’s conservative dioceses because she is a woman, said she was concerned about the diocese’s approach to women and gay people, adding that the breakaway was an “unnecessary move” that could be detrimental for the church. Archbishop Goldsworthy also took issue with the use of the word “revisionist” to describe so-called progressive bishops, noting that the “word could be used at any moment of reform in history”. Brisbane’s Acting Archbishop Jeremy Greaves, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage blessings, said the breakaway diocese was a “deeply saddening moment” in the Anglican Church’s history.
Source
Related Posts:

Therefore, just as I’m fearfully and wonderfully black, if you’re white—you’re fearfully and wonderfully white. Your identity is shaped by your creator, not critical race theorists. A positive white identity is only an impossible goal if you believe (white) people are not made in the image of God. But since white people—like all people—are made in the image of God, all white people should have a positive identity.

Just as white supremacy made some black people ashamed of their skin colour, critical race theory has made some white people ashamed of their skin colour.
In her best-selling book, White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo said “a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.”
The ramifications of that kind of racist rhetoric from authors, social media influencers, teachers, and imposter pastors cannot be understated. Critical race theory has altered many white people’s perceptions of themselves, especially young white people.
You’ve probably come across stories of children telling their parents they wish they weren’t white. You might not know, however, that critical race theory’s impact on young white people is significantly worse than that.
Young white people, especially young white women have been made to believe that though they can’t change their skin colour—they can change other parts of their body in order to achieve a positive identity.
White supremacy made some black people harm their bodies through skin bleaching. But worse, critical race theory is making some white people harm their bodies through transgenderism.
Many detransitioning white teenagers have admitted that one of the reasons why they once identified as transgender is because they didn’t think they could have a positive identity as white people.
For instance, a detransitioning woman named Helena Kerschner recently said, “I was just going through this period of like I don’t like how I’m treated as a cis person. I don’t want to be cis because cis means you’re uncool, and you’re privileged, and you’re an oppressor, and you’re bad. I don’t want to be bad. In that way I really incentivized to try to figure out a way to make my voice heard in these communities…Obviously I can’t change my race…so the only thing left was to start playing around with the gender stuff.”
Therefore, just as the civil rights movement used the phrase “black is beautiful” to affirm black beauty in the era of white supremacy, I’ll paraphrase the eternal words of our creator in this era of critical race theory and say: if you’re a white person, you’re fearfully and wonderfully white.
You’re wonderfully white because you’re wonderfully made by God. Your skin colour is just as beautifully painted by God as my black skin.
When King David said in Psalm 139 that he is fearfully and wonderfully made, he was speaking of every single part of his body, including his (probably) light brown skin—and he was also speaking of everyone with different shades of skin.
Read More
Related Posts: