My thoughts often go back and forth on this. But I think our modern society has gone too soft on sin. Public executions are a deterrent for any other person thinking of shooting up a public place full of innocent people.

My counter thought is I don't want to see that, and is it a bit barbaric? I don't know....but it does frustrate me to see so many people repeatedly commit crime until they eventually murder someone.

An execution is an ugly, distasteful thing that we do to render justice for the victims of horrendous crimes. It is necessary, but not something to celebrate because it is a reminder of our sinful state and our need to come before our Heavenly Father daily to confess our sin and ask forgiveness in Jesus' name lest we be delude ourselves regarding righteousness.

Ezekiel 33:11-
" Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?' "
(NKJV)

Televising something isn't equivalent to celebration.

If execution is to be a deterrent in addition to strict justice (and it manifestly is) it must be public.

We can, and should, pray that the person repents and finds salvation, and also that through their death others may repent and find salvation.

"Spectacle" is the word being used by the Vatican. How does EO approach this type of thing?

For the record, I'm completely against using this as a means to an end. God was clear that vengeance was his, not ours. We can lock this guy up for good.

Zobel said:

---

Televising something isn't equivalent to celebration.

If execution is to be a deterrent in addition to strict justice (and it manifestly is) it must be public.

We can, and should, pray that the person repents and finds salvation, and also that through their death others may repent and find salvation.

---

I agree completely

PabloSerna said:

---

"Spectacle" is the word being used by the Vatican. How does EO approach this type of thing?

For the record, I'm completely against using this as a means to an end. God was clear that vengeance was his, not ours. We can lock this guy up for good.

---

God was also clear we are suppose to stone people to death for a myriad of infractions ...?

Zobel said:

---

Romans 13:4

---

EO stance? Interesting.

This is the stance of many Catholic prelates as well

We can watch and appreciate what is happening without enjoying it. I think that's where folks get hung up.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I seem to recall Jesus saying if you have no sin you can cast the first stone. It's clear that Jesus would not be on board with this.

---

That's a pretty simplified use of that passage…there was a lot going on in that situation that made their stoning of her wrong.

---

Not really. RCC cites this passage and others. I happen to agree. I actually think the Old Testament passage is the more simplified "eye for an eye" kind of reaction. Jesus cites that passage as well and adds a new direction to love your enemies. Not simple at all.

The antidote to the erosion of hope is not the searing of the conscience.

Petra's new song, "Deliver Us," spoke to me very deeply on what I see going on in this nation.

searing of the conscious is particularly rich here, given that the principle point of disagreement seems to be bearing of false witness with regard to the reasons others are in support of publicly executing this man.

Quote:

---

I find the idea of a live streamed public execution to be disgusting and immoral.

---

Why? Can you make a case for the difference between "public" and "live streamed public"?

Quote:

---

Do we really want to glorify his martyrdom for the world to see?

---

I don't care what the barbarians think about our nation, our morals, or our means of ensuring justice. Their opinion is not relevant. He is not a martyr, he is a traitor and a murderer of his comrades.

I think George Washington put it well:

It gives me very sincere pleasure to find that there is likely to be a coalition of the Whigs in your State (a few only excepted) and that the Assembly of it, are so well disposed to second your endeavors in bringing those murderers of our cause -- the Monopolizers -- forestallers --& Engrossers-- to condign punishment. It is much to be lamented that each State, long 'ere this, has not hunted them down as the pests of Society, & the greatest enemies we have, to the happiness of America. I would to God that one of the most attrocious in each State was hung in Gibbets, up on a gallows five times as high as the one prepared by Haman -- No punishment, in my opinion, is too great for the Man, who can build "his greatness upon his Country's ruin."

Haman, there is a reference to the high gallows in Ester 7. More importantly, the high gallows Haman is hanged on is meant for him to hang someone else -- which seems particularly apt here.

The quote there, "his greatness" etc is a reference to a 1713 play about Cato by Addison. The full line is

Is there not some chosen curse,
Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven,
Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man
Who owes his greatness to his country's ruin?

So not only should we execute this man, who is a murderer and a traitor, but our founders viewed profiteering and the like - enriching yourself at the cost to your country - as worthy of public condemnation and shame.

Quote:

---

Is this the direction we want our country to go?

---

Manifestly yes.

I would very much like to see us recover a conception of justice grounded in something more substantial than modern sentimentality. Justice is not immoral because it is unpleasant to witness. And similarly the public acknowledgment of a terrible crime and the punishment it deserves is not an act of cruelty or immoral because it confronts us with death.

There is a distinction between solemn public justice and sadistic spectacle. I don't think anyone is advocating for the latter but people are conflating the two.

There is a key thing here in that crimes against the political community are committed against the state and the punishment for these crimes is a public matter.

Even worse here is the inversion of moral priorities. We are apparently supposed to be more concerned about the sensibilities of people who may witness the punishment than about the enormity of the crime, the obligations of justice, or the dead and their families and friends. As though the highest moral good were to spare ourselves the discomfort of confronting the consequences of evil...!!

All downstream of an increasingly materialist civilization that has lost its understanding of civic virtue, public duty, sacrifice, and even death itself. In that regard people act as if mercy is defined by avoiding discomfort (or worse, denying justice), and "civilization" or "morality" synonymous with keeping unpleasant realities out of sight (death, in particular).

This is not moral, or progress. It is just less serious. Something like a kid crying about killing a chicken but happy to eat dino nuggets.

Zobel said:

---

searing of the conscious is particularly rich here, given that the principle point of disagreement seems to be bearing of false witness with regard to the reasons others are in support of publicly executing this man.

---

Enjoy your little prurient diversion, and spare me the lecture. After all, your patriarch thinks the invasion of Ukraine was a moral cause.

Again, bearing false witness. Repent.

Also, I'm not Russian, he's not my patriarch.

There is also the comment Jesus had about millstones and causing children to stumble. Murdering the kids' mom or dad could and probably did cause some kids to stumble in their faith.

There are many service members that lost friends, mentors and colleagues due to his actions that livestreaming may help bring closure.

I won't be watching but I understand those who choose to watch.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I find the idea of a live streamed public execution to be disgusting and immoral.

---

Why? Can you make a case for the difference between "public" and "live streamed public"?

Quote:

---

Do we really want to glorify his martyrdom for the world to see?

---

I don't care what the barbarians think about our nation, our morals, or our means of ensuring justice. Their opinion is not relevant. He is not a martyr, he is a traitor and a murderer of his comrades.

I think George Washington put it well:

It gives me very sincere pleasure to find that there is likely to be a coalition of the Whigs in your State (a few only excepted) and that the Assembly of it, are so well disposed to second your endeavors in bringing those murderers of our cause -- the Monopolizers -- forestallers --& Engrossers-- to condign punishment. It is much to be lamented that each State, long 'ere this, has not hunted them down as the pests of Society, & the greatest enemies we have, to the happiness of America. I would to God that one of the most attrocious in each State was hung in Gibbets, up on a gallows five times as high as the one prepared by Haman -- No punishment, in my opinion, is too great for the Man, who can build "his greatness upon his Country's ruin."

Haman, there is a reference to the high gallows in Ester 7. More importantly, the high gallows Haman is hanged on is meant for him to hang someone else -- which seems particularly apt here.

The quote there, "his greatness" etc is a reference to a 1713 play about Cato by Addison. The full line is

Is there not some chosen curse,
Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven,
Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man
Who owes his greatness to his country's ruin?

So not only should we execute this man, who is a murderer and a traitor, but our founders viewed profiteering and the like - enriching yourself at the cost to your country - as worthy of public condemnation and shame.

Quote:

---

Is this the direction we want our country to go?

---

Manifestly yes.

I would very much like to see us recover a conception of justice grounded in something more substantial than modern sentimentality. Justice is not immoral because it is unpleasant to witness. And similarly the public acknowledgment of a terrible crime and the punishment it deserves is not an act of cruelty or immoral because it confronts us with death.

There is a distinction between solemn public justice and sadistic spectacle. I don't think anyone is advocating for the latter but people are conflating the two.

There is a key thing here in that crimes against the political community are committed against the state and the punishment for these crimes is a public matter.

Even worse here is the inversion of moral priorities. We are apparently supposed to be more concerned about the sensibilities of people who may witness the punishment than about the enormity of the crime, the obligations of justice, or the dead and their families and friends. As though the highest moral good were to spare ourselves the discomfort of confronting the consequences of evil...!!

All downstream of an increasingly materialist civilization that has lost its understanding of civic virtue, public duty, sacrifice, and even death itself. In that regard people act as if mercy is defined by avoiding discomfort (or worse, denying justice), and "civilization" or "morality" synonymous with keeping unpleasant realities out of sight (death, in particular).

This is not moral, or progress. It is just less serious. Something like a kid crying about killing a chicken but happy to eat dino nuggets.

---

Sorry, on a bad connection and my phone. But...

I don't support any public execution. Though I think a live streamed execution is worse, as it will be visible to every man, woman, and child across the globe. I think it is reasonable for the victims and their families to be present should they choose. That.

This seems like something the Taliban or isis would be proud to do. Oh, how we have fallen.

Regarding the founders, 1) they weren't divine or infallible. Their opinions are worth noting, but not something we must follow as if divine guidance. 2) did they actually ever hunt down those that they mentioned and commit public execution?


Death should not be something taken lightly. And especially inflicting death on someone else. Whether that be a death sentence, or murder, or abortion. The more death we normalize, the more death we will welcome without batting an eye. I believe in justice. And I have no problem with the death penalty for egregious crimes. But the decision and act of taking a life should not be so flippant.

Further, will add that I am pretty sure this is a political stunt for the midterms and/or to distract from the Iran war and all the missteps of Hegseth and his "DoW.". So doubt it will happen. But who knows.

You know as well as others that there are several parts of the Torah not strictly followed and in certain cases (dietary) not at all by the majority Christians in the USA.

I wouldn't knock "feelings" or "senses" as they are a window into reason where God acts- Aquinas would offer.

Aside from the morality of the death penalty, the idea of live-streaming this tragedy is where it is a clear misstep by this administration.

Nice cherry picking there (not surprised).

None the less, from what I can tell of the major religions, it would seem only the RCC has come out publicly to state the obvious.

Zobel said:

---

How do you not support public executions when they are in the Torah? Was God wrong?

---

I'm not against the death penalty, or carrying it out publicly, but those laws were for the state of Israel. It wasn't a blanket law for all countries everywhere.

Doctrine vs Dogma

I know you know the difference, but for the record - doctrine can and has evolved over time. You are conflating the two. Both involve moral considerations and the RCC position on this has evolved as recently as 2018. So I would hold up with that "hypocrite" stone.

I think it's more so a "prudential judgement" if anything. Which, of course, the faithful are allowed to disagree with the magisterium upon assuming study and good conscience

Quote:

---

I'm not against the death penalty, or carrying it out publicly, but those laws were for the state of Israel. It wasn't a blanket law for all countries everywhere.

---

I think this sentence has a lot of modern encumbrances on it (state, laws, etc) but even if we accept this premise the sake of discussion that doesn't address the problem.

People are saying this is immoral. That means that God told Israel to sin in the Torah.

I'm not conflating anything.

I'm not as familiar with Judaism, is everything in the Torah equivalent to a dogma (unchanging divinely revealed truth for the sake of salvation)? Or are they in a sense similar to doctrine that evolves over time?

From what you have written about the RCC, you are in fact.