Capital Punishment

Does the Church condone capital punishment? This question has three components that need to be addressed:

- What is the Church?
- What is Capital Punishment?
- What is the link between the Church and Capital Punishment (with particular reference to Romans 13:1-4)?

The first question is best answered using an analogy with simple modelling to get a clear picture of what the issues are, and what has happened historically; otherwise, as we will see later, confusion here can, and does, cause untold problems. In our model we will use the following criteria:

- The global church consists of three patriarchates: A, B and C
- Each patriarchate is located in countries: X, Y and Z respectively
- At a given point in historical time, each one of the patriarchates subscribes to the view that capital punishment is a legitimate option that can be legally applied by the elected governments in those countries

Since these three patriarchates represent Orthodoxy world wide, and, as mentioned, they all accept capital punishment, the question arises: does the Orthodox Church, as one single body of Christ, sanction capital punishment, according to the specified criteria?

It may surprise some, but the answer is NO.

What has been established is that all the local churches, at that point in historical time, do sanction capital punishment, but that does not translate into the Church as one entity sanctioning capital punishment.

Without going into minute theological legality, spiritually speaking, each individual church that functions under one bishop is a complete Orthodox church in its own right. When it comes to the formal beliefs of the Orthodox Church as the one body of Christ, however, the teaching of the Church is expressed in its Canons, as decided upon formally by joint representation of each local church at Councils (eg the Apostolic Council and the seven Ecumenical Councils).

The three patriarchates (A, B and C) could only make a pronouncement on a specific issue (capital punishment in this case) as being the teaching of the Church of Christ, if they met in council, jointly decided on a resolution (that capital punishment was acceptable and appropriate for use as determined legally by the Governments of Countries X, Y and Z) and then officially recorded this as a Church canon. Only then could it be said that this was the teaching of the Church, and that canon would then be legally binding on all future churches, unless it was revoked by another future council.

In the original scenario (with Churches A, B and C) even though the whole Orthodox world believed in capital punishment, there could be a complete reversal with future replacement of one or more patriarchs. Thus a few years later, we could see, for example, Patriarchates A and C still subscribing to capital punishment, but Patriarchate B rejecting it. And all this would be quite legal; the issue being that without capital punishment being canon law it merely has the status of local teaching based on the Old Testament.

In the context of our model the answer to the question: does THE Church condone capital punishment, the answer is NO. Now translating this to the real world, this is the current status of capital punishment in Orthodoxy; it has no canonical mandate – as a death penalty (this will be clarified later).

It is rather surprising that the meaning of Capital Punishment is frequently misunderstood. It is often viewed as legal killing authorised by governments, and consequently there is confusion between this and killing in times of war by soldiers, for example. How could this be? There are various contributing factors; but probably the main problem is that people have preconceived ideas about the issue and then either select biblical quotes that appear to justify their views, or scripture is wrongly interpreted. The fundamental difference between capital punishment and other modes of killing sanctioned by governments is that with capital punishment the person being executed is already held in captivity. Other forms of legal killing include self defence, or defence of a nation, protection of society, and war in general, where there is danger to life or property. With capital punishment danger to society no longer exists; but if it were to exist in some obscure circumstance, and that danger could be removed only by proceeding with the criminal’s death sentence, then, and only then, could an argument be made to justify execution. However, in such a case it could also be argued that the death penalty here would be synonymous with defence of a nation in warfare.

With that brief introduction we can now revisit the original question: does the Church condone capital punishment?

According to The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, the term ‘condone’ has a range of meanings:

1 – Forgive or overlook (an offence or wrong doing)
2 – Approve or sanction, usually reluctantly

The term ‘sanction’ is defined as approval or encouragement given to an action.

The short answer appears to be that, in the main, historically, various LOCAL churches have condoned capital punishment according to the first definition. Some may argue that the second definition has also applied, but unless that can be demonstrated convincingly to be the case, the evidence is that some local churches may have sanctioned (in the sense: encouraged) the introduction of laws permitting the use of capital punishment, rather than encouraging the actual killing of prisoners. If it were the case that bishops pushed for the actual application of the death penalty, then this could not be taken as the teaching of that local church, but rather, the teaching or inclination of the local hierarchs.

It should be noted, however, that the thing being condoned, by this (first) definition, is the capital punishment and not the original crime that was committed; the offence in this context is the capital punishment itself. When we say that something is being condoned, it means that the thing being condoned is not a good thing but it nevertheless is being allowed to occur, even though it is an offence. So applying the condoned label to something automatically places it in the ‘not-good’ or sinful category.

If we claim that a Church condones capital punishment, then what we are saying is that the Church views capital punishment as sinful, but by definition, the Church cannot legitimise sin, although it can, and does, forgive sin, where forgiveness is sought.

CANONICAL STATUS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Canon law provides for Capital Punishment but NOT for the Death Penalty. The explanation is found in:

THE 85 CANONS OF THE HOLY AND RENOWNED APOSTLES Together with an Interpretation of Them in the Common Dialect of Modern Greek (Translated into Modern English)

CANON XXV

INTERPRETATION

[The] present canon decrees thus, any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon that gets caught, ie or is proved to have engaged, in the act of fornication, or violence of an oath, or capital theft, by which phrase is meant, according to c. XXVIII of the Faster, one entailing capital punishment. Capital punishment, however, is not decapitation, or death otherwise speaking, according to the interpretation given by Balsamon in commenting on ch. 25 of Title IX of the Nomocanon of Photius, but exile, abacination (or excecation), cutting off one hand, and other similar punishments, for any offense.

According to Church canons capital punishment does not mean death; instead it means punishment such as exile or cutting off one hand.

No canon prescribes the death penalty, and the Church does not advocate this despite the appearance to the contrary in the Epistle by Paul to the Romans - specifically: Romans 13: verses 1, 2 and 4:

1- Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

2 - Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

4 - For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing ; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

These verses will be discussed later in this study.

ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Subsequent references to Capital Punishment will be used in the context of death penalty.

This article is the (non-concluded) outcome of a series of lively discussions by members of the B.O.G. Forum, wherein the current author, a priest, made the following sweeping statement:

“I do not believe you will find one single saint who advocated capital punishment, and I think the same applies to the Church as the body of Christ.”

The response was substantial, to put it mildly.

Sound arguments were put forward to ‘prove’ that governments do have the God-given right to impose capital punishment in appropriate circumstances; what those circumstances are is a grey area that will be acknowledged here but not debated. It should be noted that those who argued that the Church does sanction capital punishment, do not themselves advocate its actual use, any more so than those who claim to the contrary.

We will first look at the basis for concluding that capital punishment is approved by God, followed by the counter-arguments.

The specific points raised will be numbered to make it easier for subsequent reference and response.

RATIONALE FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

DK referred to the death penalty as it applied in early Russia at the time of Prince Vladimir.

1 - When Prince Vladimir converted Rus to Christianity, the story goes that he was so changed and imbued with Christian love that he refused to order anybody's execution. In reaction to this, the Metropolitan of Kiev, together with other clergy reminded him that the power to do so was given by God and subsequently he had every right to exercise it.

DK translated the following quotation from Russian to English concerning the Church’s support for capital punishment.(1)

At last the Pastors of the Church brought the pious Prince out of his delusion. Why do you not punish evil? - they asked. I am afraid of God's wrath, replied Vladimir. No!, replied the Bishops, you are placed by God to punish the evil and be merciful to the good. You need to punish the criminals, but only after review” [to ensure that the punishment was warranted]. The Great Prince, having accepted their advice ... again reinstated capital punishment, which existed previously under Igor and Sviatoslav.

2 - The only time capital punishment was abandoned in the 1000 years of Russian Christianity was during the 20 years of the reign of Elizaveta, between 1741 and 1761.

3 - After his conversion, St. Vladimir was an exemplary Christian; however, part of being a Christian implies being strong whenever that is called for. Also every opportunity was traditionally given for the [condemned] person to prepare themselves for death by partaking of the Sacraments.

AK added the following arguments.

4 - I would assume that, because the Metropolitan of Kiev encouraged Prince Vladimir to re-instate the death penalty, that the church did in this instance condone it (Romans 13 again).

5 - However, the church did not forbid its members from serving in the military; in many cases it has even encouraged military service. Also, one can look at the Gospels themselves. When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist, he did not tell them to desert their posts - he instructed them instead to perform their duties honourably and to not use their power to oppress the helpless. When the Centurion came to Christ on behalf of his sick servant, Christ did not tell him to leave the army.

Concerning the incident in the New Testament where Christ prevented the adulterous woman from being stoned by the Jews, AK explained:

6 - Firstly, we need to remember that the stoning was mandated within the Law of Moses, and thus, because she was still living under that Law, she did deserve to be stoned.

7 - Since Christ himself, being the lawgiver, was present, He [overrode] that law in that one instance. He might have known of the woman's inner repentance or some exceptional circumstance that the bystanders may not have known about.

8 - We do not know what it was that Jesus wrote on the ground. I once read a musing by St. Nicholas Velimirovich, where he suggested (based, I think, on a received tradition) that Christ wrote, in turn, various serious sins secretly committed by each of the accusers - sins for which they, perhaps, had avoided the prescribed punishments for. Thus, it was not so much about the punishment itself [of the adulteress] as it was about the double standards applied by the accusers.

9 - Romans 13 speaks of a general teaching where a legitimate authority is given the prerogative to apply the death penalty in order to preserve order and decency in a society. John 8 speaks of an isolated case where lawful authority was absent. Indeed, in my mind, John 8 plays a vital role in qualifying the teaching of Romans 13 by clearly showing an example of where execution is inappropriate, without questioning its appropriateness in other contexts.

10 - Here is a link to the Corpus Juris Civilis, a body of laws published during the reign of the Emperor Justinian, who is a saint in the Orthodox Church:

http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps.htm

Specifically, I have been looking at the Codex, books I-III. I will provide some quotes.

- “If anyone should merely attempt to, I do not say ravish, but marry a consecrated virgin, he shall suffer the penalty of death.”

- “According to the new law, a crime of this kind is punished with scourging or exile, but if the culprit interferes with the sacred rites, or prevents them from being celebrated, he shall be put to death. The same rule applies to the litanies, for the offender is scourged and sent into exile for an ordinary offence, but if he interferes with them, he is punished with death (the crime in question is desecration of a Catholic church).”

- “We decree that ravishers of virgins, widows, or deaconesses, consecrated to God, shall suffer the penalty of death, as having committed the worst of crimes, which is not only an injury to man, but also displays a want of reverence for Almighty God himself. Therefore, those who commit an offence of this kind, as well as those who give assistance at the time of the attack, and are caught in the act by the parents of the holy virgins, widows, or deaconesses aforesaid, or by their relatives, guardians, or curators, if convicted, shall be put to death.”

- “The penalties which We have mentioned above, that is to say, death and confiscation, We establish not only against the ravishers themselves, but also against those who accompanied them in the attack and rape.”

- “Where anyone belonging to the ministry of the Catholic sect, is convicted of having baptized the same person twice, he shall, along with him who induced him to commit the offence (provided he is of such an age as to be responsible), be condemned to death.”

- “We direct that he who has induced a slave or a freeborn person, against his will or by means of threats, to renounce the Christian religion for any infamous sect or rite, shall be punished with the loss of his property and death.”

- “He who has begun the construction of a new synagogue, not with the intention of repairing an old one, shall be condemned to pay fifty pounds of gold, and be deprived of the work which he is already presumed to do; and, moreover, it is hereby decreed that his property shall be confiscated, and that he shall be condemned to the penalty of death, as one who, by his false doctrine, has attacked the faith of others.”

- “All documents of every description, which proceed from Us, shall not be of any other colour than purple, made of the ashes of two kinds of shell-fish called murex and conchylus. It shall only be lawful to produce or cite rescripts in any judicial proceeding which have been drawn up on paper or parchment, and to which Our signature is attached. It shall not be lawful for, or permitted to anyone, to have or to seek for any dye of this kind, or to expect to obtain it from any source, and he who audaciously violates this rule shall be condemned to death, after the confiscation of all his property.”

11 – Next AK refers to the infamous Romans 13:4.

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.

- To me, when read carefully, this passage is as clear as can be. To those that do wrong, the state is justified to punish them, to the point of death.

- Smuggling narcotics is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Hence the state is justified in administering capital punishment if it so chooses. End of story.

12 - On the other hand, it seems that St. Paul has left a loophole of sorts - if one is not doing wrong according to God's point of view, then the state's authority to punish is null and void. To borrow an example from a recent Forum post, the beheading of St. John the Baptist was unjust for two reasons:

(a) The crimes he had allegedly committed (of pointing out King Herod's sin) were not crimes in God's eyes.

(b) The execution was performed outside the due process of the law.

13 - At the time of St. Paul, the Roman Empire was ruled by an emperor whose corruption and decadence were well known. If St. Paul still managed to refer to him as 'minister of God' in his capacity of preserving order in the nation, then I see no problem in referring to other modern day governments as 'ministers of God' in that capacity either.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:

CHURCH DOES NOT SANCTION CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

In response to this priest’s view that you would not find one single saint who advocated capital punishment, we saw two glaring examples of St Vladimir and St Justinian the Great, imposing capital punishment, with the latter doing this in a big, and almost frivolous, way. Looks like poor priest must eat humble pie. But maybe he is a proud priest and will try to extract himself from this uncomfortable predicament, or perhaps, he may argue that the issue is massively sensitive and therefore requires minute scrutiny. What are his motives? We may never know. [Did someone say: who cares?].

Saints Vladimir and Justinian did indeed impose death penalties, and perhaps other saints in similar positions did likewise. Apart from Christ no other person was sinless, and that includes saints. During their earthly struggles saints were ordinary people who grew in holiness as they progressed in their journey to God. Perfection was attained in Heaven; the path to perfection was trodden on earth. That path, not yet being a state of perfection, meant that the holy strugglers were not yet (canonised) saints. Therefore when St Vladimir imposed the death penalty, he did this when he was not a saint, and the same applies to St Justinian. Understand this: in saying this, we are not playing with semantics here.

How does capital punishment work; what is it? It is the killing of a prisoner, one who is already in captivity, and therefore no longer a threat to society. It could be argued that if the now canonised saints, Vladimir and Justinian, were to materialise at any prison that practised capital punishment, and were asked by the authorities whether any prisoner on death-row should be executed, they would say no! Keep them alive in jail, as long as need be.

We can apply the same reasoning to Christ; had He materialised at a place of execution would He look at a condemned prisoner and turn around to the authorities and say: execute him? In case we are under the influence of jungle juice and need guidance in answering this question, the Lord would never do that.

Man’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviour are subject to change, not only in relation to others, but also within himself – he is like the wind. God is different; He is absolute and does not change His mind. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” [Tim: 13:8] But because of man’s instability and immaturity, and his enslavement to base passions, God must relate to each person individually, and also to societies according to their specific cultures, traditions and levels of understanding. Hence those who lived in the Old Testament era needed to be taught and nurtured at the base level first and gradually raised emotionally, morally and spiritually in preparation for life according to Christ; they could only understand and relate to laws and standards that specifically defined norms of behaviour and morality - this is right; this is wrong; do this, don’t do that.

It was not a case of God saying: these are the rules that I have established for you – obey them; and then a few thousand years later He changed His mind and said: these are the new rules; swap over now.

The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount differed from the Old Testament mentality like ‘chalk and cheese.’ This does not mean that God changed His mind; that first He taught one thing and then something totally different. A long transitional phase was required because of man’s inadequacies - his primitive passions and deficiencies that would require ages to diffuse because of the constant reinforcement by long established cultural norms.

For this reason, Christ stated: [Matt. 5]

38 You have heard that it was said: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

This law reflected the natural inclinations and fears of society that prevailed at that time. God knew that it would be manifestly more effective to implement some semblance of law and order by using fear as the primary motivator; this is merely a reflection of man’s primitive nature.

Man’s internal state determines how God relates to him, and not the other way around (where God commands that man shall have an internal state that God specifies by law). For this reason the Islamic faith, for example, parallels Old Testament values and modes of behaviour, as shown by the following examples, from the Quran (Koran) (2).

1- Islam prescribes several methods for eliminating robbery, including chopping off the hands as punishment for robbery. [Al-Qur’an 5:38]

Why is this punishment prescribed?

[The] amount of theft that takes place in the world tody is so tremendous that if you chop off the hands of all thieves, there will be tens of thousands of people whose hands will be chopped off. The point here is that the moment you implement this law the rate of theft will decline immediately. The potential robber would give it a serious thought before jeopardizing his limbs. The mere thought of the punishment itself will discourage majority of the robbers. There will barely be a few who would rob. Hence only a few person’s hands would be chopped off but millions would live peacefully without fear of being robbed.

2- In the case of illegal sexual intercourse, Islam prescribes that both the man and woman be flogged with a hundred stripes without pity, if they are not married; for married people the punishment is stoning to death.

Also Islam prohibits the molestation and rape of women; the prescription is capital punishment for a convicted rapist.

Why is this punishment prescribed?

Suppose the Islamic shariah is implemented in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic Hijab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and hands up to the wrists. After this if any man commits rape, he gets capital punishment. The question is, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same or will it decrease? Naturally it will decrease. Islamic Shariah gets results.

3- In time of war it is not fitting for an apostle of Islam to take prisoners until he had thoroughly subdued the land – all must be killed. [Sura 8:67-69]

An ordinary war may be for territory or trade, revenge or military glory - all temporal goods of this world. Such a war is condemned. But a jihad is fought under strict conditions under a righteous Imam, purely for the defence of faith and God's law. All baser motives, therefore are strictly excluded. The greed of gain in the shape of ransom from captives has no place in such warfare.

Destruction and slaughter, however, repugnant to a gentle soul like that of Muhammad, were inevitable where evil tried to suppress the good.

Note the similarity between the punishment of cutting off hands under Islam and the interpretation of Canon XXV, written 2000 years ago; likewise killing the enemy in defense of one’s faith. The only difference between converts to Christianity 2000 years ago and modern-day Muslims is Christ God.

What is being demonstrated here is that in the early Christian era, it was natural for people to retain their way of life, their culture from time immemorial, their beliefs, traditions and passionate inclinations and tendencies. If after thousands of years modern man is plunging into perversion and immorality, at an explosive rate, then all the more so would less sophisticated people with primitive tendencies seek satisfaction through their base passions. Laws had to be tailored to match their nature just to maintain law and order, and some semblance of civilized morality. When a shepherd has spent days away from home, herding his goats in the hot dry wilderness, and then upon his return he sees a young attractive woman, philosophy and theology would be the last thing on his mind. But if he knew that disobedience of the laws would result in severe punishment, he indeed might think twice.

The Islamic examples illustrate that these qualities are the natural state of fallen man, and not something restricted to the Israelites. So it would do little good expecting an immediate and sudden change in people’s behaviour just because they had converted to Christianity. If the above shepherd decided to get baptized and then was tempted to commit adultery, he would restrain himself if the death penalty still existed; but if the only penalty, to his way of thinking, is sin, something that could be easily forgiven, then the outcome could be very different.

It should now be clear that in the early period the laws had to be framed in a way that would result in least evil. A society without moral standards is fundamentally no different to animals – God’s image in man is blasphemed and His likeness is destroyed. In those circumstances it is better to kill corrupt individuals in order to save the rest. But once this threat is removed then the focus returns to the sanctity of the individual’s life.

In the first case, some criminals die physically, but the rest of society is protected by these ‘barbaric’ laws from perishing spiritually. With Christ’s advent every effort is made to save the souls even of those individuals who would have been condemned to death previously. As long as they live there is hope of repentance and salvation. If execution occurs salvation prospects are terminated.

The death penalty was prescribed in the Old Testament on a number of occasions.

“The first Divine pronouncement which seems to sanction the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:6: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man is made to the image of God.” When the ancient Israelites had departed from Egypt and were sojourning in the Sinaitic Peninsula, they received from the Lord a code of legislation wherein the death penalty was prescribed for many offences. Thus, in Exodus 21, that penalty is prescribed for murder, for wilful assault upon the father or mother of an offender, for cursing a man’s father or mother, and for man-stealing. Down to their latest days the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah preserved capital punishment as a feature of their criminal code.” (3)

However, although such laws were prescribed by God, their application was not favoured, neither by God nor by the Jews themselves; “In practice, however, these punishments were almost never invoked, and existed mainly as a deterrent and to indicate the seriousness of the sins for which they were prescribed.” (4)

God confirms through Ezekiel that this approach towards capital punishment in the Old Testament has His blessing.

“Answer them: As I live says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live. Turn, turn from your evil ways!” [Ez 33:11].

Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser provided the following summary on capital punishment approved by the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards:

“The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before they would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them… There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete.”(5)

In a text book used by seminarians at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, N.Y., the author Bishop Averky explains (p 203): (6)

“In the 7th chapter the Apostle explains that the Christian, freed from slavery to sin, is also freed from the Laws of Moses. Those laws had temporary significance, with the aim of exposing the full force of sin, thereby enabling mankind to realise that salvation is not possible without help from God. Although the law exposed the wounds caused by sin, it did not provide the means of healing. It provided man with the bitter realisation of his utter inability to fulfil all the commandments through which he sought justification before God. But now we Christians have been freed from the law with the need to serve God by renewal of the spirit, and not by strict compliance with the letter of the law; ie not through external formalism imposed by the law.”

It is clear that in the Old Testament era the Law focussed on the mind and relied on fear as the primary motivator. Christianity, on the other hand, targets the heart and emphasises love for God. Thus one mode requires extreme measures – including the death penalty – for its effectiveness; the other emphasises forgiveness and love, where there is no room for the death penalty.

39 But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil: but whosoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Now we see God motivating people with love (for each other and for God), using a staged approach. To claim that God changed His mind would mean that His first decision was a mistake – an absurd conclusion.

God’s love is such that He would not advocate killing a disarmed person held in captivity. If further convincing is required, consider the following explanation provided by the Lord concerning our enemies:

43 You have heard that it was said: you shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy.

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you;

45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

In the pre-communion prayers we say to God: “For Thou, O lover of men, has said through Thy prophet that Thou desires NOT THE DEATH OF A SINNER, but that he should return to Thee and live.” If we believe what we have told God, then how can this belief be reconciled with the view that God sanctions the death of a sinner (in the form of capital punishment) while not desiring his death?

And as we approach the chalice, we say:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, OF WHOM I AM CHIEF.

Now we have a little explaining to do: do we believe what we have just said. Yes? Well in that case we truly believe that we are worse than the criminal condemned to death, and that therefore we deserve punishment at least equal to his. Under the former Soviet system the Underground Church was established to escape persecution of those approaching the chalice. And what was/is a sane person’s reaction to the notion of the death penalty being applied for no other reason than being guilty of approaching the chalice? It is, in a word, demonic. Well, by extension, the same logic should apply to capital punishment, seeing as the condemned criminal is not as bad as us, because we have told God that we, and not the criminal, are the chief sinners.

If truth be told, we in reality don’t think about this issue at all; the mouth speaks while the brain is disengaged. Deep inside, however, we simply do not put ourselves in the same category as murderers. We explain away such prayers as acts of piety. Pity! God knows that we are lying.

In the laws enacted by St Justinian the death penalty applied to persecutors of Christians, this apparently being justified by Romans 13, and therefore being the will of God. What about Apostle Paul? He persecuted Christians; had he lived in the time of St Justinian he would have been executed; Christ on the other hand appeared to him, and not only forgave him, but elevated him to the highest apostolic rank. This elevation was God’s will, so how could it be God’s will to bless his execution had it occurred five hundred years later, all other things being constant, with time being the only difference between the two. How could time alone be the determining factor between exaltation and execution?

As we know, Jesus is the head of the Church, so if the head says NO to the death of a sinner, then one would expect the body to follow suit.

Let’s now look at murder from a different angle. How many times have people committed spiritual murder with slander, false accusations, and malicious gossip? It is not uncommon for a priest to meet people on their deathbed, dying of cancer, who had not been to church for decades. Why? Because they were driven away by the tongues of pious parishioners. But how significant is spiritual death compared to death of the body, a.k.a. murder. Jesus tells us with no uncertainty:

And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. [Matt 10:28]

Where then is the logic in justifying capital punishment in the case of murder, for example, where only the victim’s body is killed, but when this happens to the soul it is a non-event?

Analysis of Arguments that Claim the Church Sanctions Capital Punishment

Arguments 1, 2 and 4 have already been addressed at the beginning of this paper.

Argument – 3

Holy sacraments could only be offered to some prisoners – practicing Orthodox, and in their case, execution would be a miscarriage of justice.

In an ‘ideal’ society, one that is ruled by a God-fearing ruler, such as St Vladimir, one would expect that those prisoners condemned to death would be those who have committed the worst kinds of crimes; crimes that would horrify normal people, and in particular Orthodox Christians. Thus criminals of this calibre would, if anything, despise holy sacraments, having nullified their conscience.

Even in circumstances where crimes of passion occurred spontaneously, and a person was nevertheless condemned to death, emotions would likely prevail at the top end of the ‘Emotional Richter Scale,’ bearing in mind that the emotions induced by the death penalty would be imposed upon those that originally resulted in the crime. Sacraments, however, require the recipient to be spiritually and emotionally receptive, something that would be difficult to achieve when anger, resentment and fear are dominant.

Herein lies a key objection to capital punishment.

As long as man is permitted to live until God decides that it is time for him to go, that person has been given every opportunity to repent. On the other hand, when capital punishment is enforced, that opportunity is denied. It might be argued that the prisoner could repent during the time leading up to the execution, but that is delusional thinking that is not based on reality (probably more to do with justification for imposing the death penalty than caring for the condemned prisoner’s soul). Repentance is synonymous with desire and love for God.

A prisoner about to be executed would not normally be in a peaceful state of mind, but more likely to be either an emotional wreck or filled with hatred. Furthermore, even under normal circumstances people have to be emotionally ready to come to God, and He calls them when that time has come; case in point being when Christ called Levi (Matthew) the tax collector. The Lord came to him and said: follow me; Levi got up and followed him. St John Chrysostom says that had Jesus came at any other time, Levi would not have gone with Him.

The fathers also teach that spiritual warfare does not cease at the moment of impending death; if anything this warfare intensifies, with demons trying to create despair and confusion, even as the soul is in the very process of departure. In that split second demons hope to scare the soul into panicking and losing hope in God’s mercy. Capital punishment would prime the soul to be in that very same condition that demons try desperately to create.

Whereas if the criminal is kept in prison, all his life if need be, then with time (and pastoral care if required), he would indeed be given every opportunity to come to terms with his predicament and to discover God. Thus capital punishment could be the very instrument of a soul’s damnation – a process that is totally at odds with Christ’s raison d’etre.

Argument – 5

Both in the case of capital punishment and military service killing is/can be, the final outcome, but spiritually and morally the two instruments of death are poles apart. With capital punishment the perceived benefits are:

- Justice is done.
- Similar criminal activities are discouraged
- The executed prisoner is no longer a burden on society
- Preservation of order and decency in society.

Definition of justice is subjective. In those countries where life in prison is the maximum penalty, justice is also considered to be done. When a person sins heavily and receives absolution and forgiveness, justice is, once again, done – in fact at the highest level.

Paraphrasing the sixth century saint, Isaac the Syrian, he said: Don’t call God just. He is not just; He is all-loving. We commit the sins and God sends His Son to suffer for us; what kind of justice is this? Justice demands that the guilty ones be punished.

Concerning military service and warfare, there is no denying that this is not only necessary in the societal context, but also obligatory from the Church’s perspective, if the need arises. We see this in the Old Testament and historically throughout the Christian era.

We however cannot equate capital punishment with death through military action. Legitimate warfare is an unfortunate fact of life and is mandatory for defence of the country. In the extreme case, pacifism can equate with murder. Take the hypothetical example where in time of war an Orthodox soldier stumbles across an enemy soldier with a machinegun, who is about to execute a group of innocent women and children. The options are to kill the enemy or to ignore him. If the second option is taken and the Orthodox soldier walks away, in the belief that killing is wrong, then he will be personally responsible for the deaths of the victims.

However, in order to emphasise the sanctity of all human life, the Church does impose a penance of three years excommunication in cases where killing occurred. The same sanctity applies to the prisoner on death row. The difference between the two is that killing during war is condoned in order to save lives, whereas capital punishment always results in the net loss of life.

Arguments – 6 & 7

The argument that Christ’s intervention on behalf of the woman who was about to stoned because she committed adultery was a once off event that involved the Law-Giver overriding an existing law due to an exceptional circumstance, is not correct; as mentioned earlier, with Christ’s advent the laws of the Old Testament got upgraded permanently by the Lord. This was one such instance that was recorded by John. [8:3-11]

Argument – 8

Indeed the fathers do teach that the Lord wrote the individual sins of the accusers in the sand; however, His intervention on the woman’s behalf was not for that reason, even though the double standards of the accusers was a small component that was also exposed by this act. The primary reason for this action was to demonstrate God’s love for mankind, and that only He has the authority to judge another’s sins.

Even though the woman’s accusers displayed double standards, they were no different to other ordinary religious Jews. They believed that by stoning the woman they were complying with the Law of Moses, and thereby serving God. While protecting the woman with His divine love, Jesus at the same time demonstrated the same love and compassion for the accusers; He did not condemn them, nor did He reveal their individual sins to anyone else, thus enabling them to retain their dignity. The primary lesson for them and for every other person is that judgement belongs to God. Christ did this not by saying that the woman is above the law; she wasn’t, but that a higher law was now coming into effect – the law of love, and love cannot accommodate killing sinners. By His actions God showed that only the sinless can judge sinners: those without sin can cast the first stone; and God is the only sinless one. Sinners can (and must) only judge themselves. Yet here again, although God is qualified to judge, He is reluctant to do so because this clashes with love.

Argument – 9

The argument that Romans 13 legitimises capital punishment is a common interpretation. The idea presented here is that this authority given to rulers is nevertheless restricted to certain situations that are necessary to preserve order and decency in society, meaning that the death penalty cannot be administered unjustly. This will be discussed further after looking at the remaining arguments.

Argument - 10

This is a lengthy demonstration of how loosely capital punishment was interpreted as a right and applied by a genuinely pious emperor, one who was subsequently canonised. This was covered adequately earlier.

We have covered considerable territory thus far but the single most contentious issue remains unanswered: Interpretation of Romans 13.

The key verse, and the primary cause of countless debates at all levels within the church hierarchy, from lay people to bishops, is 13:4.

“But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.

AK and DK, like most people have no qualms about its meaning: “To me, when read carefully, this passage is as clear as can be. To those that do wrong, the state is justified to punish them, to the point of death … End of story.” In actual fact it’s not end of story; that is only the end of one interpretation.

Let us pose the question: what is the worst crime that one can commit? Before we answer this, presumably everyone will agree that if crimes such as murder, rape and treason, to name a few, qualify for capital punishment, then the worst crime of all must, by definition, warrant the death penalty. So what is this ultimate crime? It is killing God Himself – Christ’s crucifixion to be specific. Whatever the Church officially sanctions (canonically) then God Himself blesses that act and therefore sanctions it – meaning that He approves and encourages it. But how did the Lord God respond to the atrocity of His crucifixion? The God-man, hanging beaten on the cross, wants no vengeance; instead He says: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” [Luke 23:24] This is God’s desire, and this is therefore the Church’s desire.

Let us continue. Romans 13:1 and 2 clearly state that all forms of government are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God. There seems to be no room to manoeuvre; there is no obvious escape clause, much like the Old Testament Commandment: thou shalt not kill. Yet we read in the same Old Testament that God blessed battles fought by the Israelites, which resulted in massive massacres. We point this out merely to show that statements are made in the bible, which at first reading appear absolute, but commentaries by the fathers and church experience reveal otherwise. For this reason we are cautioned about the reliability of personal interpretation.

The first hint of this being the case here comes in the next verse [13:3]:

For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

Commonsense and life experience tells us that the first three verses cannot have universal application, that, as they stand, they apply to good government. Stalin and his communist government were, indeed, a terror to good works. Millions of lay people, monastics, priests and bishops did what was good, but they did not receive praise from Stalin; instead they got killed.

The Orthodox Study Bible likewise states that St Paul speaks about good government, and not all governments, in the commentary on 13:5-7: (7)

Paul calls Christians to submit to GOOD government, to obey both God and man. The Kingdom of Heaven and earthly kingdoms are called to work together. The Church and State for Paul are certainly distinct, but they are not separated or isolated from one another. On the other hand, a government that upholds evil, forcing it on her people, is an abusive authority and in such cases, ‘we ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29).

And along these lines, Romans 13:8-10 states: A person who loves his neighbour will have no problem obeying a JUST government.

This is further reinforced in Hebrews 13: 7 and 17:

7 - Remember them that had the rule over you, men who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.

17 - Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account.

Quoting Bishop Averky (p 206)

“Chapters 12 – 15 cover the moral aspects of St Paul’s epistle. Here the holy Apostle describes the ideal moral life of Christians. In chapter 12 he talks about the Christian’s obligations, as a member of the Church, in relation to God (v 1-2) and to his neighbour (v 3-5), about various supernatural gifts and normal service, about feelings and attitudes of a Christian (v 8-21).

In chapter 13 the holy Apostle speaks of obligations of a Christian and as a member of society and its government. Here the particularly important issue is the form of obedience to the authorities: every soul shall obey the authorities (v 1). For the correct understanding of this form of obedience, we need to take note of the meaning of verses 3 and 4: that authority, which is from God, encourages good and punishes evil. “For that reason we have the right to say,” says righteous Isidore Pelusiot, “that it is most important to understand that authority here refers to the rule and authority of emperors, appointed (and anointed) by God. But if some robber-outlaw usurps that role then we do not claim that he was appointed by God, but rather say that it is allowed by God to vomit [reject] this evil, as with pharaoh, and in those circumstances to cope with the resulting punishment; also this [a bad ruler] might be required to enlighten those who only learn through harsh punishment, such as occurred when the king of Babylon instilled wisdom to the Jews.”

So the point of the discussion here is to show that even in Romans 13, apparently ‘absolute’ statements are not in fact absolute, but are context specific.

Some real life examples are in order here. In recent times the U.S. government has been accused of committing atrocities in its fight against global terrorism. No one would argue that the George W Bush government is illegal. It has been elected by the people and therefore meets Roman 13 criteria. The laws passes by the Bush administration are valid. So if we were to argue that, from the Romans 13 perspective, all is above board, then we have to accept that what the Bush government does legally is approved by the God. How does this logic square with the following media reports?

BBC News (8)

Top UK judge slams Camp Delta

One of Britain's most senior judges has condemned the US over the detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

Lord Steyn said conditions at Camp Delta were of utter lawlessness, in a speech seen by Channel 4 News.

The Law Lord said the US was guilty of a monstrous failure of justice and challenged UK ministers to condemn the decision to hold any prisoners there.

He said detainees were beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts and at the mercy of victors.

Washington Post (9)

Legalizing Torture

In a paper prepared last year under the direction of the Defense Department's chief counsel, and first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, the president of the United States was declared empowered to disregard U.S. and international law and order the torture of foreign prisoners. Moreover, interrogators following the president's orders were declared immune from punishment. Torture itself was narrowly redefined, so that techniques that inflict pain and mental suffering could be deemed legal.

Washington Post (10)

The … prisoners … are being held without any legal process, outside review, family notification or monitoring by the International Red Cross. Moreover, the administration has declared that such prisoners may be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, such as mock executions and simulated drowning, even though the United States has ratified an international treaty prohibiting such practices. It also insists on the right to transport these prisoners to countries where torture is practiced, again in contravention of international law.

TELEGRAPH.co.uk (11)

I loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world

America is one of the few countries in the world that executes minors. Well, it doesn't really execute them - it just keeps them in jail for years and years until they are old enough to execute, and then it executes them [the youngest of them is only 13]. It administers drugs to mentally disturbed prisoners on Death Row until they are back in their right mind, and then it executes them, too.

They call this justice and the rule of law. America is holding more than 600 people in detention in Guantánamo Bay, indefinitely, and it may well hold them there for ever.

Washington Post (12)

EDITORIAL

Torture and the Constitution

DOES THE Constitution permit the use of waterboarding, or simulated drowning, to extract information from people detained by the government? To most Americans, the very question may sound ludicrous. Waterboarding, after all, has been recognized as a torture technique since the time of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition. U.S. soldiers who were caught using it on enemy insurgents in the Philippines, in 1901, or the Vietnam War, in 1968, were prosecuted. When suffocation by water was used by foreign governments, such as the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, the State Department didn't hesitate to call it torture.

Yet the Bush administration sees it otherwise. Not only have senior officials denied that CIA interrogation techniques, which are known to include waterboarding, constitute torture, but administration lawyers argue that the practice doesn't necessarily violate the lesser international legal standard of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In ratifying the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment in 1994, the Senate defined cruel, inhuman and degrading as any practice that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th amendments. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pledged during her tour of Europe last week that administration policy was to prohibit all U.S. personnel from breaking that standard, presumably including those who staff secret CIA prisons.

Telegraph.co.uk (13)

Last week both Houses of Congress approved a bill – the Military Commissions Act – which will permit the indefinite extra-judicial incarceration of terrorist suspects and their interrogation using torture in all but name.

New York Times (14)

News Analysis

In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them … beyond the reach of the full court reviews.

The bill … does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.

“The senators made clear that waterboarding is criminal … referring to a technique used to simulate drowning.

Christian Science Monitor (15)

Pentagon investigates 'brutal' deaths of 5 Iraqi prisoners

The Denver Post reported Wednesday that Pentagon records show brutal interrogation techniques used by US military personnel are being investigated in the deaths of five Iraqi prisoners who were held in war zone detention camps.

The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died of natural causes during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure. Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died while undergoing stress technique interrogation, involving smothering and chest compressions, according to the documents.

These reports clearly confirm the earlier statements that we are not obliged to follow blindly laws and policies that clash with Christian norms and that Romans 13 cannot be interpreted by reliance on one’s own intellect alone.

Argument – 11

Ultimately Romans 13:4 is the single verse upon which the pro-capital punishment argument hangs: “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.” The fallacy here is to equate the sword with the death penalty.

The Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Southern United States publicly supports capital punishment, but it nevertheless makes the following observation. (16)

Referring to the authorities, St Paul writes “For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Rom 13:1-5). The reference to sword might be interpreted literally (to refer to capital punishment) or symbolically (to refer to the power of the state to punish wrongdoers).

Concerning Church canons, the index in The Rudder states: “Deposition, is called death and sword.” (17) This refers to clergy being deposed from office, and the terms ‘death’ and ‘sword’ do not have a literal meaning here from the canonical perspective.

What were the views of the early Christians on the death penalty?

During the first few centuries after Jesus’ execution, Christians were instructed to not participate in the execution of a criminal, to not attend public executions, and even to not lay a charge against a person if it might possibly eventually result in their execution. (18)

Clement of Rome, Justine Martyr and other Christian writers who discussed capital punishment during the first three centuries after Jesus’ execution were absolutely opposed to it.

Tertullian, 160-220, and Lactantius, 240-320 also fought strenuously against capital punishment of condemned criminals. (19)

When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men … It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature. (20)

The third century bishop-martyr of Carthage, St Cyprian does not differentiate between killing by the State or by the individual:

The world is drenched with mutual bloodshed. When individuals slay a man, it is a crime. When killing takes place on behalf of the state, it is called a virtue.

Whether or not the state sanctions it, the Christian can have no part in the shedding of blood. (21)

One would expect that the early Christian fathers would have been aware, more so than later interpreters, of the meaning of scripture, and in particular Romans 13:4.

With specific reference to the sword (in Matthew 26:51-54) renowned theologian, Blessed Theophylact explains: (22)

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest, and smote off his ear. Then said, Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall immediately set beside Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures he fulfilled, that thus it must he?

Peter was the one who drew the sword, as John says. For he had a sword, having just recently sacrificed the lamb which they ate. But let us not condemn Peter, for it was not on his own behalf, but for his Master, that he acted so zealously. But the Lord converts Peter to the evangelic life lived according to the Gospel, teaching man not to use the sword, not even when presuming to avenge God. Peter cuts off the ear, signifying that the Jews suffered from the infirmity of deafness in that they would neither hear nor heed. Then Christ gives the dictum of the law, that he who slays will himself be slain. For the law says that “they who take the sword shall perish with the sword. He implies that the Jews who take up the sword against Him will be destroyed by the sword of the Romans.

Fr Thomas Mueller, Dean of the Chicago Deanery of the Orthodox Church in America, confirms that Blessed Theophylact’s explanation of this event is consistent with that of the early Church.

The constant interpretation of this passage in early Christian times was that wielders of the sword of vengeance – the judge, the executioner, (by modern standards, the judge or jurist seeking the death penalty) – all these fall under this threat. They all participate, as the murderous criminal does, in the shedding of blood, the taking of life. And they too become marked by the experience, cursed by their own bloodletting. (23)

Argument – 12

The argument that the beheading of St John the Baptist was unjust because the execution was performed outside the due process of the law is not correct, because Herod was the law-unto-himself. Be that as it may, what cannot be denied is something infinitely worse: Christ Himself was executed legally!!!

This one fact alone undermines the pro-capital punishment interpretation of Romans 13:4

Argument – 13

The argument here is that St Paul referred Nero as ‘minister of God’ and hence modern day governments act as ministers of God. This is true to the extent that they act as ministers of God, but if they choose to act as ministers of antichrist, then they cease being ministers of God.

This is an area that would benefit from recognised Orthodox commentaries. We will refer to the Russian bible commentary: “The Commentary on all Books of Holy Scripture in the Old and New Testaments,” published in Russian. The following translation gives the general background to Romans 13:1-6, as understood by the Russian Orthodox Church in pre-revolutionary Russia. (24)

In civilian life a Christian is obliged to submit humbly to God’s ordinance and obey the lawful authorities. It is clear that the Apostle was aware of Roman Christians being disobedient to the authorities. Their coldness towards performing those obligations required of them as Roman citizens may have been a reaction kindled by the Jewish opposition to Rome, combined with the expectation that the end of the world was nigh.

In the end the cult of the emperor impelled Christians to protest against the Roman authorities who did not tolerate Roman citizens refusing to offer incense to the statues of the emperor.

So in verse one, the Apostle emphasises the point that Roman Christians do have an obligation to obey the lawful authorities because they, as governing bodies, were instituted by God.

The forms or types of government in each individual case are established by God. The Apostle, however, does not go into specific details here (for example, he makes no comment on how Christians should respond to new rulers who come into power following violent overthrow of an existing government). He only establishes the principles of civilian life.

Concerning verses 3-4 the Apostle explains that, in this context, those who oppose the lawful authorities do so to their own detriment; they bring punishment on themselves, rather than reward.

It should be noted that when the Apostle wrote his epistle in Rome, at that time Nero had not yet begun his persecution of Christians. This initial period of 3 - 4 years following his enthronement was the best days of his rule. Also it needs to be understood that the Apostle here speaks of the ideal form of government.

In view of the confusion caused by Romans 13:4 it is worth putting this verse under the microscope: “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.” What are the facts?

- If you do wrong you can expect to be punished
- The governor bears arms (a sword)
- He can make use of the sword (to keep law and order – to punish)

What does this verse not say? It does not say:

- That he was given the sword by God (although he may have been); it merely recognises the fact that he does carry the sword
- How the sword is to be used. Specifically there is no reference to capital punishment. The verse acknowledges that authorities will use the sword if need be, but there is no indication about the Church’s attitude concerning its actual use – what is appropriate, what is not. There is in fact no comment about whether its use is sanctioned by God. Christians are merely warned that such is the state of play, so beware.

There is no basis whatever for concluding that St Paul sanctions capital punishment. His statement could equally apply to contemporary Australian law where police are armed with hand guns. They can legally use those guns to apprehend criminals, and kill them in self defence, or while protecting bystanders, if necessary. But the police have no authority to use their weapons to execute anyone.

The interpretation by the Roman Catholic Church is consistent with an unbiased Orthodox understanding of this verse. Pope John Paul II wrote: (25):

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

----------------

1. Ref:
2. An explanation about the practical benefits of these laws, 1 and 2, is given by the WHY-ISLAM Website. Explanation of law 3 is provided by Yusuf Ali, the translator of the Quran into English; from answering-islam.org website.
3. Catholic Encyclopedia
4. Wikipedia – Religion and capital punishment, “Orthodox Judaism”
5. Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1927-1970, Volume III, p.1537-1538
6. Bishop Averky, “Guide to Learning Holy Scripture of the New Testament,” Part 2, Epistles, Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, 1956
7. The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1993
8. BBC News, 26/11/2003, “Top UK Judge slams Camp Delta”
9. Washington Post, June 9, 2004; “Legalizing Torture,” Page A20
10. Washington Post, June 12, 2005, Page B08
11. Telegraph.co.uk, 08/05/2003, “I loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world”
12. Washington Post, December 11, 2005, “Torture and the Constitution,” Page B06
13. Telegraph.co.uk, 01 Oct 06
14. New York Times, News Analysis, 29 Sep 06
15. Christian Science Monitor, May 20, 2004
16. The Coptic Orthodox Diocese,
17. The Rudder, D Cummings, The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, Illinois, 1957
18. D. W. Berot, “Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up,” Scroll Publishing, Tyler, TX, (1989) pp 105-106
19. Catholic Culture: “Capital Punishment – New Testament Teaching,”
20. Lactantius, “The Divine Institutes,” Book 6, Ch. 20
21. In Communion: “Blessed are the Meek: Capital Punishment and the Gospel.”
22. The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St Matthew, Chrysostom Press, 1992.
23. www.incommunion.org
24. Commentary Bible, Vol. 3, New Testament, Petersburg Russia, 1911-1913
25 Pope John Paul II, “The Church and Capital Punishment,”

Theology and Philosophy

Go to Previous Page