The 'lex talionis' of the Old Testament held 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' and by extension: 'a life for a life'. Yet, there was the messy problem of the Commandment: "You shall not kill." (And there are no footnotes to the scriptural text listing exceptions.)

The New Law of Christ is quite clear also: 'forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'. 'Judge not lest you yourselves by judged'. 'Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.' The summation of all Christ's actions in the gospels are geared towards healing, forgiveness and making people whole. Except for losing His temper with the money-changers in the temple (damned bankers!) I don't think the Gospels provide us Christians with the authority to take the life of another human being. In fact the earliest Christians were total pacifists -- not raising their hands against their executioners. It was only much later when the Church got in bed with the state, that there needed to be a justification for doing people in.

The current Holy Father is only mirroring the mindset of the earliest Christians when he seeks mercy for the condemned. Crime is indeed a problem, and a consequence of our imperfect and disordered human existence. And the victims of crime indeed deserve our (Christian and State) support, but our care for them cannot be linked to ourselves becoming moral criminals -- with or without state sanction.

The key, once again (and yes, as an educator I am biased!) is education. If all the people of the U.S. or anywhere else were knowledgeable Christians, then the democratic state -- being governed by the consent of the (informed) people -- would not have a death penalty, nor any other law that permits the taking of another human's life. What political leaders in the past have done is really irrelevant.

I find it somewhat intriguing that in all discussions of death penalty, the most heinous execution is often ignored. As He asked: "Oh my people, what have I done to you?" But they killed Him anyway. It was 'the Law'.

As Brendan (and Sharon) point out, 'American Secular Religion' can be schizophrenic in its moral principles, upholding the value of human life in some situations and withholding it in others.

The real question is: how can we "Love God -- Love our neighbor" Christians today bring Christian and Gospel principles to bear on the way our nations live their moral lives?

Education! Education! Education! (and a hefty dose of meditative prayer).

Christ is Risen!

Could I substitute "Evanglization?"

Yeah, that's fine. BUT, the education has to come first otherwise we'll be evangelizing all sorts of stuff that is not only integral to the Byzantine faith community, but also the 'other stuff' that has come along in the process. There are waaay too many folks who'll be evangelizing novenas (and there's nothing wrong with them!) as part of the Byzantine patrimony. And that is just not quite kosher. If were going to 'reclaim' who we are, we've got to educate our folks into what that really is.

Blessings!

I have to admit, I have not been up on the part of my hierarchs and what they have recently said on the issue of capital punishment. John, or anyone else, do you know of some places online-- or offline, that we can find statements of the Byzantine Hierarchy on the death penalty? My own research is more academic, and more involved with philosophy and theology from past centuries, and I sometimes do not keep up well on what is currently going on.

I do remember that the Eparchy of Parma's Horizons, which I get, often has pro-life articles, often dealing with this very issue. But I do not remember any of them being specifically written by our Hierarchs, nor with major quotations of them within the articles.

I realize that our Hierarchs have been rather busy trying to help strengthen our parishes as they are being re-organized and reshaped to fit our heritage, and so probably have had far less time to focus on social concerns. I am pleased that at least the Horizon's has articles on the topic, which I suspect indicates the issue is considered a legitimate concern, but I hope there is more that can be pointed out.

Sorry to say, Henry, but there doesn't appear to be anything really formal about statements on the death penalty. Most of Byzantine Church life exists on the parish level; we don't have the squadrons of 'administrators' that are more characteristic of Roman dioceses which would publicize these directives. I suspect that our parishes are expected to take their lead on issues like the death penalty from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops; but, again, what makes it into the diocesan papers depends on how much room is available.

As Brendan pointed out elswhere, if it's disorganized, it's got to be Orthodox (or -- by extension -- Byzantine Catholic.) But at least we eat well. And dance a lot.

(PS: If I remember correctly, being a 'homicide' is an 'impedient impediment' (i.e., NO exception) against ordination. So, no soldier who had killed someone, no former cop who killed someone, etc. Interestingly enough the old RC canon law also forbade priest-physicians from performing surgery. Never quite understood that one.)

Christ is Risen!

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 05-21-2001).]

John,

I dug out my commentary of the "Old" Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church. Canon #985:6 forbids even accredited physicians and surgeons once they have been admitted to the clerical state from practicing medicine period, excepting in an emergency situation. Those who violate this canon are deemed irregular if by their practice of medicine a death results. This ruling goes back to a decretal of Innocent III (1198-1216)and arises from his concern about monks practicing surgery. Because of this, some writers even held that religious who were not clerics were also forbidden the practice of medicine, although others disagreed.

Don

I would agree with eating well -- but I am wondering where all the dancing is at, that I have missed it?