Sir , – Based on the assumption that “Christians believe that the Bible is literally the word of their god”, Hugo Pierce quotes from the Old Testament various endorsements of capital punishment for various crimes (Letters, April 25th). Some Christians do indeed still follow this tradition and continue to believe that God wills that human life be taken – “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.
However, for Christians who believe that God does indeed reveal Himself/ Herself and the ways for the proper respect of human life in society this revelation is a progressive one, where God gradually reveals in history a better way of living.
Jesus of Nazareth, eventhough he came from the Jewish tradition of the Torah quoted by Hugo Pierce, revealed through his life, words and actions that this ancient practice of a life for a life was not the will of God.
Even though eminent Christians still refuse to acknowledge this revolutionary teaching of Jesus that the reign of God has no place for violence, capital or otherwise, against the human person regardless of race, colour, gender, sexual orientation – or indeed of any crime committed by any human person – that doesn’t mean that they represent all Christians. Yours, etc,
BRENDAN BUTLER,
The Moorings ,
Malahide ,
Co Dublin
A chara, – Hugh Pierce (Letters, April 25th) does not have an accurate understanding of Christians and the Bible when he writes: “Christians believe that the Bible is literally the word of their god.” The Bible for Christians bears testimony to the developing understanding that people have had over many centuries about their relationship with God.
Consider the specific example of how we respond to evil done to us. In the case of Cain in Genesis 1:15, sevenfold vengeance is seen as the deterrent. In Genesis 1:24, seventy-sevenfold vengeance is what Lamech threatens. The vicious cycle of vengeance was quickly spiralling out of control. So we have a principle to limit this in Exodus 21:24: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”
This principle is still applied in places today. For Christians it is long since superseded by the sayings of Jesus in Matthew 5:38-48: the radical teaching of “Love your enemies.”
In Matthew 18:21-22, Peter has a problem with such teaching, and asks: “How often must I forgive one who wrongs me? As often as seven times?” “Seven” here is not a numerical value, but shorthand for “always”. Jesus responds in dramatic fashion, echoing Lamech in Genesis and totally reversing the standard for his disciples: “Not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
Christians have often failed disastrously in living up to this, but it is still the gold standard, in relation to the death penalty and so much else. This is where we stand. Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Blackthorn Court,
Sandyford,
Dublin 16
Sir, – It now seems a proponent of the death penalty in Ireland can expect about as warm a response as a minister of education at an ASTI conference. I remain unmoved, but lest your readers think that I am a bloodthirsty barbarian, I shall make no further appeals to Antonin Scalia to support my argument.
Let me resort to a more celestial power. The catechism of the Catholic Church, (paragraph 2266), after acknowledging the state’s “right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime”, declares “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty …”
So far so good, except that the catechism then presents some important qualifiers and ends by quoting John Paul II’s disapproving counsels on capital punishment. However, the clear absence of a bright-line teaching on this issue is telling in a document not otherwise known for fudge (compare this language with the infamous and absolutely clear text on homosexual acts, paragraph 2357).
As a historian of the church, I venture that this ambiguity is unavoidable given 1) the clear support for the death penalty in Scripture, both Old and New Testaments; 2) the church’s millennial record of support for the idea that the state was God’s earthly “sword”, and its lengthy application of this principle in the Papal States and elsewhere; and 3) the continuing fair-minded disagreement among theologians on this question.
Despite what other letterwriters would have us believe, the incompatibility of Christianity and the death penalty has nowhere been conclusively established.
I am satisfied that I am not mad. Yours, etc,
DR SEAN ALEXANDER
SMITH,
Aiken Village,
Sandyford,
Dublin 18