Thursday, February 16, 2023

Thursday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time

(Genesis 9:1-13; Mark 8:27-33)

Today’s first reading authorizes capital punishment in cases of murder.  What other conclusion can be drawn from God’s statement to Noah that if someone sheds the blood of another, the killer’s blood will be shed?  Yet the Church has come to prohibit capital punishment.  What going on?

Nothing in the gospels annuls God’s declaration to Noah.  The New Testament letters presume capital punishment and acknowledge the state’s authority to administer it.  The prohibition has resulted from the need to shore up human dignity in recent times.  The carnage of twentieth century wars, the arbitrary killing in procured abortions, and the inequitable way the death penalty is adjudicated has necessitated the call for a prudential halt in executions. 

Perhaps someday the Church will reconsider its position.  We might hope and pray not.  Our motive is not the continuance of violence demanding a sign against it.  Rather we want to see a more peaceful society showing how capital punishment may be permissible but is also counterproductive.       

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Thursday of the Thirty-third Week in Ordinary Time

(I Maccabees 2:15-29; Luke 19:41-44)

With secure ways to imprison violent convicts most Western countries and many American states have abandoned capital punishment for most crimes.  The exception to this rule is treason which still carries the death penalty in states like Michigan, the first English-speaking jurisdiction to ban it for other felonies.  These facts provide context to understanding the two killings that shock sensitive readers in the passage from I Maccabees today.

Mattathias takes the lives of a Jew who was offering an illegitimate sacrifice and of the king’s messenger, probably not Jewish, who is promoting the abominable sacrifices.  At least the death of his first victim is mandated by the Law (Deuteronomy 13:7-10).  But both killings should be taken as legitimate execution.  Just as some contemporary jurisdictions treat treason as the only capital crime, sacrifice to idols in ancient Israel is uniquely offensive.  It violates the Covenant in a way that not only affronts the Lord but diminishes the faith of the people, which is considered necessary for Israel’s survival.

We must not commend actions such as Mattathias’ if done today; nevertheless, we best condemn the Jewish hero.  Jesus never faces such a critical situation although he does use force in cleansing the Temple.  It is his teaching, however, that inclines us to lay aside all forms of violence, even capital punishment.  He implores us to love our enemies, which does not necessarily exclude putting him to death but certainly suggests it.  Capital punishment, as the Church teaches, is a penalty of last resort when the common good is genuinely and severely threatened.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Memorial of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

(I Maccabees 2:15-29; Luke 19:41-44)

With secure ways to imprison violent convicts most Western countries and many American states have abandoned capital punishment for most crimes.  The exception to this rule is treason which still carries the death penalty in states like Michigan, the first English-speaking jurisdiction to ban it for other felonies.  These facts provide context to understanding the two killings that shock sensitive readers in the passage from I Maccabees today.

Mattathias takes the lives of a Jew who was offering an illegitimate sacrifice and of the king’s messenger, probably not Jewish, who is promoting the abominable sacrifices.  At least the death of his first victim is mandated by the Law (Deuteronomy 13:7-10).  But both killings should be taken as legitimate execution.  Just as some contemporary jurisdictions treat treason as the only capital crime, sacrifice to idols in ancient Israel is uniquely offensive.  It violates the Covenant in a way that not only affronts the Lord but diminishes the people’s faith, which is necessary for Israel’s survival.

Although we cannot commend actions such as Mattathias’ if done today, we should be cautious about condemning the Jewish hero.  Jesus never faces such a critical situation although he does use force in cleansing the Temple.  It is his teaching, however, that inclines us to veer away from capital punishment.  He implores us to love our enemy, which does not preclude putting him to death, but certainly bids mercy.  Capital punishment, as the Church teaches, is a penalty of last resort when the common good is genuinely and severely threatened.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Memorial of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, religious

(I Maccabees 2:15-29; Luke 19:41-44)

With secure ways to imprison violent convicts most Western countries and many American states have abandoned capital punishment for most crimes. The exception to this rule is treason which still carries the death penalty in states like Michigan, the first English-speaking jurisdiction to ban it for other felonies. These facts provide context to understanding the two killings that shock sensitive readers in the passage from I Maccabees today.

Mattathias takes the lives of a Jew who was offering an illegitimate sacrifice and of the king’s messenger, probably not Jewish, who is promoting the abominable sacrifices. At least the death of his first victim is mandated by the Law (Deuteronomy 13:7-10). But both killings should be taken as legitimate execution. Just as some contemporary jurisdictions treat treason as the only capital crime, sacrifice to idols in ancient Israel is uniquely offensive. It violates the Covenant in a way that not only affronts the Lord but diminishes the faith of the people, which is considered necessary for Israel’s survival.

We must not commend actions such as Mattathias’ if done today; nevertheless, we should be cautious about condemning the Jewish hero. Jesus never faces such a critical situation although he does use force in cleansing the Temple. It is his teaching, however, that inclines us to shy away from capital punishment. He implores us to love our enemy, which does not necessarily exclude putting him to death, but certainly suggests it. Capital punishment, as the Church teaches, is a penalty of last resort when the common good is genuinely and severely threatened.

Homilette for Thursday, February 19, 2009

Thursday of the Sixth Week in Ordinary Time

(Genesis 9:1-13; Mark 8:27-33)

Remember the campaign question, “Where’s the beef?” It did more than inquire into political benefits. It hinted at the human craving for meat. We see this predilection for the flesh of animals in the first reading today.

Noah has just emerged from the ark with representatives of all animal species. They have journeyed together for at least forty days and more likely a year. They have shared a common diet which certainly did not contain any meat. Then Noah, without being asked, sacrifices some meat to God. No doubt, he thinks that since humans have a taste for meat, God would savor it as well. God then makes a concession to humankind. Because of their liking, humans may eat the flesh of animals as long as they respect their life blood.

Also, God demands that human society execute murderers. As much as abolitionists might like to overlook the command, the imperative is clear. “If anyone sheds the blood of man,” God says, “by man shall his blood be shed...” Then how can the Church teach that capital punishment is no longer to be practiced? A few considerations are in order about Pope John Paul II’s 1995 appeal to end the death penalty. First, he never claimed that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, only that that governments which are able to remove murderers from society without executing them should do so. Second, he allowed for governments which cannot safely put away murderers to execute them. Third, he proclaimed the need to stop killing criminals as urgent today to counter the culture of death that has become so prevalent with mobsters and abortionists getting away with murder. We might say that the pope is asking God to make a concession as He did in allowing humans to eat meat. As early humans were likely to have rebelled if they were not allowed to eat meat, so too will members of our society continue killing one another gratuitously if we do not provide cogent example of not killing anyone.