The most interesting statement of Paragraph #2267 of the Catholic Church’s Catechism teaching on the Death Penalty is not that it is “inadmissible” but that this mature finding was made “in the light of the Gospel.” The “Gospels” are what the Church calls the ‘Good News,’ and “The life and teaching of Jesus.” (CCC 126). This was a profound thing to teach: that state-sanctioned homicide is contrary to the teachings of Our Lord. Heretofore, scholastic theologians had proudly appealed to the Lex Talionis, the Apostle Paul, and consequentialism (i.e., the ends justify the means based on the outcome of actions) to defend the Church, giving the monarchies power to kill heretics and others, but this was a dynamic and permanent shift in reflection of Veritatis Splendor; that Catholic moral theology; in light of natural law and the teachings of Jesus Christ, now found the death penalty to be contrary to the Gospel.
Indeed, there is no verse in all of sacred Scripture that positively and explicitly supports or licenses state-sanctioned-homicide (i.e., the death penalty issued after adjudication by men against men) in any manner that has been carried out in known human history (e.g., hanging, crucifixion, burning at the stake, stoning, drowning, impalement, lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, firing squad, beheading, or dismemberment). In fact, Romans 13:3-4, which is the most often cited verse in sacred Scritpured used to defend state-sanctioned-homicide, does not even mention it. What it does state is that:
For magistrates/rulers (Gk archōn) are not a terror to that which is good (Gk. agathos), but to the bad nature (Gk. kakos). Will you then not fear the power? Do what is good, and you will have praise (Gk. epainos) of the same. For he is the servant (Gk. diakonos) of God (Gk. theos) for your God. But if you do that which is kakos, be fearful; for he bear/wears (Gk. phoreō) not the sword in vain/without purpose (Gk. eikē); for he is the diakonos, of theos, an avenger/punisher (Gk. ekdikos) to wrath upon him that does kakos.
Romans 13:3-4 – David L. Gray’s literal translation
Prefacing this passage, in Romans 13:1, (“Let every person be subordinate to the rulers appointed by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God”) for the term “appointed by God,”1 the Apostle Paul uses the Greek ‘tasso’ (τεταγμέναι), meaning ‘those who have been ordained by God,’ thus signifying Paul’s lean into the traditional Roman belief that those appointed by God (Divine Right to Rule) demanded submission and obedience.
According to Paragraph 2242 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we have moved past the idea of the Divine Right of Kings or the notion that state rulers are servants of God; rather, “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.” In other words, as Catholics with functioning brains, we recognize rulers such as Joseph R. Biden and Kim Jong Un are terrors against the good, not servants of God.
While, “the sword” could relate to how Roman’s beheaded their citizens (prior to the sword it was an ax – non-citizens were usually crucified), it must be remembered that the rationale for beheading was that it was ingrained in their tradition that beheading was a ‘privilege’ and the most solemn and honorable way to die for citizens who committed serious and high offenses, such as treason, parricide, rape, arson, large-scale theft, murder of high-status individuals, treason, and sedition. This is in contrast to how the death penalty is applied in the United States at the discretion of secular judges and juries, where it is not considered a privileged reserved for citizens. On the contrary, the United States, the death penalty is typically given to individuals who lack adequate legal representations – the more competent your lawyer, the less likely, you will be given the death penalty.2
On the contrary, there is far more evidence in the Gospels of God rejecting, mocking, ridiculing, and spitting on the death penalty than Him positively endorsing it. Here are the Five Times that Christ Jesus Condemend the Use of State-Sanctioned-Homicide:
1. Herod’s Massacre (Death Penalty) of Infant Boys
The narrative of Joseph’s actions in Matthew 2:16-18, in the context of Herod’s decree, presents a complex interplay of obedience, authority, and the sanctity of life. Herod, as archōn, issued a decree that resulted in the slaughter of human life known as the Massacre of the Innocents, where all the male infants in Bethlehem were ordered to be given the death penalty on site. This act, seen through the lens of Roman authority as described in Romans 13:3-4, could be interpreted as the exercise of legitimate power. However, Joseph’s response, guided by a divine warning, was to preserve the life of Jesus by fleeing to Egypt, thereby rejecting Herod’s decree and his right to issue the death penalty. Saint Joseph’s actions were obedience to God, duty as a father and husband, profound respect for life, and an acknowledgment of the imago Dei—the image of God in every human being—which transcends all earthly authority.
Even though this action cannot be attributed to the baby Jesus, it is listed here as a juxtaposition against the idea that Jesus’ crucifixion was an approval of God of the death penalty. The two’s relationship adds another layer to this discussion, which will be argued further in point 5. In the instant case, some argue that Jesus’ submission to crucifixion could be seen as an acceptance of the death penalty. However, contrasting this is the evidence of Joseph’s protective actions during Jesus’ infancy, which can be interpreted as a rejection of the death penalty, emphasizing the protection and preservation of life. This juxtaposition highlights the tension between exercising governmental authority and the moral imperatives that drive individuals to uphold the dignity of life.
2. The Sermon on Mount (The Death Penalty of Contrary to the Gospel)
The Sermon on the Mount, as recounted in Matthew 5, presents a profound shift from the Old Testament’s lex talionis, or the law of retaliation, which is often summarized as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Jesus’ teachings in this sermon move away from retributive justice and towards a message of mercy and reconciliation. He emphasizes the sacredness of life and the importance of forgiveness, challenging the motives behind the death penalty. In Matthew 5:21, Christ Jesus extends the commandment against murder to include anger against one’s brother, suggesting that even harboring such feelings (often habiting in advocates of the death penalty under the guise of secular justice) violates the sanctity of life. Furthermore, in verses like Matthew 5:38-39, our Lord explicitly rejects the principle of retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” This teaching underscores the value of life and the call to respond to wrongdoing with forgiveness rather than vengeance, which has always been a motive for the death penalty.
Jesus’ message in the Beatitudes further reinforces this life-affirming ethos. The Beatitudes, a series of blessings pronounced by Jesus, begin with declarations of happiness for the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, and those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Notably, in Matthew 5:7, Jesus says, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” This beatitude stands in stark contrast to the concept of the death penalty, which is fundamentally a form of punishment without reprieve. The emphasis on mercy suggests a preference for restoration over retribution, aligning with the broader theme of the Sermon on the Mount, which is one of transformation and renewal of the inner person.
In the broader context of Christ Jesus’ teachings, his identification as “the way, the truth, and the life” in John 14:6 further cements the life-affirming message of His ministry. He positions himself not as an agent of death, but as the path to eternal life, emphasizing the eternal over the temporal and the spiritual over the physical. This perspective inherently challenges the finality and destructiveness of the death penalty, advocating instead for a response to wrongdoing that preserves life and offers the possibility of redemption.
In summary, the Sermon on the Mount, particularly Matthew 5, reflects a radical departure from the principles that underlie the death penalty. Jesus’ teachings promote a culture of life, mercy, and forgiveness, encouraging us to seek reconciliation and transformation rather than retribution. Our Lord’s message affirms life in all its fullness, offering a vision of a community built on the principles of love, compassion, and mercy, which are fundamentally at odds with the motives of the death penalty. Therefore, the Sermon on the Mouth can be seen as a clear rejection of the death penalty’s underlying motivations of revenge, anger, and vengeance and a call to embrace a more compassionate and life-giving approach to justice.
3. The Woman Caught in Adultery
The narrative of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, often cited from the Gospel of John (8:1-11), showcases a profound moment where mercy, justice, and human dignity intersect. In this account, Christ, our Lord, is presented with a woman accused of adultery, and those who brought her to Him were ready to enact the death penalty as was customary under the law at that time. However, Jesus’ response is not one of endorsement for the death penalty but rather a challenge to the crowd’s moral authority to condemn. By stating, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” Jesus shifts the focus from punishment to self-reflection on one’s imperfections and the universal need for forgiveness.
This moment is easily interpreted as Jesus rejecting the death penalty, not through direct opposition, but through a demonstration of compassion and an appeal to conscience. Here, Christ Jesus exposes the hypocrisy of the accusers, highlighting that they, too, are not without fault and thus not in a position to cast judgment or inflict the ultimate punishment. The act of letting the accusers walk away without condemnation and advising the woman to “sin no more” reflects a departure from retributive justice towards restorative justice. It emphasizes the potential for personal transformation over punitive measures.
Jesus’ treatment of the woman underscores a broader message found in His teachings, which advocates for the value of each individual life and the power of grace. It suggests a preference for forgiveness and rehabilitation over retribution, a stance that resonates with many who question the moral implications of capital punishment. The narrative invites contemplation on the ethics of the death penalty, encouraging a deeper consideration of secular justice that is tempered with Christian mercy and humanity.
In essence, the story is a powerful example of how mercy can be a transformative force, offering a path to redemption rather than a final judgment. It challenges individuals and societies to consider the principles that underlie their justice systems and to seek ways to uphold every person’s dignity and worth, even in the face of serious transgressions.
4. Render Unto Caesar What Belongs to Caesar (Not the Imago Dei)
The teaching of Christ Jesus regarding “rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (Mark 12:17) is a profound statement that has been interpreted in various ways throughout history. At its core, it distinguishes between the roles and responsibilities owed to secular authorities and those owed to the divine. When considering the death penalty, this teaching can be seen as a commentary on the sanctity of life, which is a divine attribute, as humans are created in the image of God, or ‘imago Dei.’ The interpretation is that Caesar has a right to do with things he has made in his image, but he has no authority over the imago Dei.
The concept of ‘imago Dei’ implies that human life holds an intrinsic value that is derived from its divine origin, and therefore, it is not within the purview of earthly powers to unjustly take it away. This perspective aligns with the rejection of the death penalty, suggesting that life is a sacred gift from God and not something for secular authorities to dispose of at will. The notion that human beings bear the imago Dei means that they possess a reflection of divine qualities, including the capacity for relationship, morality, and reason.
To take a life through state-sanctioned homicide is to prematurely end the potential for redemption and transformation that is possible for all individuals, no matter their actions. This aligns with the Christian belief in forgiveness and the possibility of repentance, which are central themes in Jesus’ teachings. The act of execution, therefore, can be seen as a contradiction to the divine will for human life to be preserved and for every person to have the opportunity for spiritual growth and reconciliation.
Furthermore, the teaching emphasizes the limited jurisdiction of secular authority, implying that while governments have the power to govern and maintain order, they do not have absolute dominion over matters of divine significance, such as life and death. This separation of powers serves as a reminder that while citizens may fulfill their obligations to the state, their ultimate allegiance is to God, their creator in whose image they were made.
In essence, Jesus’ teaching on rendering unto Caesar and God encourages a discernment of the boundaries between secular law and divine law, advocating for a respect for life that transcends legalistic interpretations of justice. It calls for a recognition of the divine image in every person and a corresponding treatment that honors that sacredness, which is fundamentally incompatible with the finality and irreversibility of the death penalty. This interpretation upholds the value of mercy and the potential for divine grace to work within every human being, regardless of their earthly transgressions, which are distinct from their image.
5. The Crucifixion (Giving God the Death Penalty)
Jesus rising from the dead on the third day was a demonstration that the death penalty is foolish. No one can kill God or His image. The Romans’ most famous method of issuing state-sanctioned homicide was proven to be powerless on the Son of Man. Jesus mocks, spits on, and ridicules the death penalty by showing that it has no power over Him. He rises above it. Until the Pentecost, Jesus laughs at the hypocrisy of humans penalizing God. Then He ascends to the right hand of the Father, where He looks down on death as He calls all those who believe in Him to eternal life.
When we Catholics adore the cruficix, we are doing nothing less than adimring the fact that the death penalty had no power over God. The Jews and the Romans gave Him vengeance, anger, retaliation, and death on their instrument of state-sanctioned homicide, but through their machinations and their silly instrument of death, He gave us life. In this way, we are all children of the death penalty and its powerlessness over light, life, the way, and truth. We are not victims of the death penalty; we are champions and victors over it. We laugh at the death penalty and all of man’s attempts to kill the imago Dei. At every turn, Caesar and the evil heart of man will try to kill the imago Dei, but the Ressurection proved that God is greater than man’s attempts to kill Him and His children.
WE WANT TO HELP YOU GROW IN YOUR FAITH
HERE ARE SOME OF OUR COURSES
- Also used in Matthew 28:16 (“The eleven* disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had APPOINTED/tasso them.”) and Acts 13:48 (“All who were APPOINTED/tasso for eternal life came to believe”). ↩︎
- Representation | Death Penalty Information Center, The death penalty: a punishment for the poor? (fidh.org), ↩︎
