Three Questions on Death Penalty

• Is it just as per natural law?
• Does it remain just in all régimes that are legal?
• Is carrying out of each death penalty a requirement of this justice?

First question: is death penalty just as per natural law?

Two opinions about the natural law are false. We should get these out of the way first.

• That it is identic with the 613 commands of the Torah.
• That it is identic with the "7 Noahide laws".

The latter are a Jewish heresy.

The law of the Old Covenant included commandments that go beyond the natural law, partly as prophecy and partly as paedagogy.

"Don't mix wool and linen in a fabric, don't sow wheat and rye on a field ..."

The correct reaction isn't that a Catholic wearing some garment in shatnetz is in mortal sin, nor that this is something only Halakhic Jews need to worry about, the correct reaction is "got it, don't mix Pagan error and Hebrew truth" (the Catholic truth remains Hebrew in origin, even if it's accessible to all Gentile nations as well). And that actually is of the natural law, about our duties to God when He choses to reveal Himself.

So, when it comes to doctrine of the afterlife, we have no right to sentimentally presume that someone who died under the burden of some guilt could either get a chance to improve himself in the next life where he's punished for this life, or get a next life after punishment in a separate world (those doctrines belong to respectively Dharmic religions and Somnium Scipionis by Cicero, I suppose the latter also had Neoplatonic precursors therein). We also have no right to presume that a soul of someone killed is in some kind of anguish and then that this anguish is relieved when the killer is killed.

The closest Biblical suggestion even of such a thing (like some have taken Mt 11:14 as endorsement of reincarnation, wrongly so), is Apocalypse 6. This may actually have a bearing on the overall subject, so ...

And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:10]

Now, not only the Haydock comment, but also the comment sometimes attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas (modern editors say "by unknown author") doesn't endorse this belief. It cites St. Gregory:

Item petitio justitiae: usquequo non judicas sanguinem nostrum?		So the petition of justice: How long dost thou not revenge our blood?
Gloriam nostram consummando per corporum resurrectionem.		Consummating our Glory by the Resurrection of the Bodies.
Deuteron. 32, vindicabit dominus populum suum.		Deuteron. 32, the Lord will [revenge] His people.
Extant Vulgate and Douay Rheims have a different text: The Lord will judge his people, and will have mercy on his servants: he shall see that their hand is weakened, and that they who were shut up have also failed, and they that remained are consumed Judicabit Dominus populum suum, et in servis suis miserebitur : videbit quod infirmata sit manus, et clausi quoque defecerunt, residuique consumpti sunt. [Deuteronomy 32:36]
Et non vindicas, scilicet nostros persecutores puniendo, non vindicas inquam, de his qui habitant in terra?		And does thou not revenge, that is punishing our persecutors, not revenge I say, of these who live on Earth?
Idest inhaerent terrenis per amorem.		That is, are immersed in terrestrial things by their love.
Vel, non vindicas sanguinem nostrum, idest non facis judicium de effusione sanguinis, scilicet puniendo tyrannos et persequutores?		Or, not revenge our blood, that is not make judgement of the spilling of blood, that is punishing tyrants and persecutors?
Unde exponendo subdit: et non vindicas nos vel sanguinem nostrum de his qui habitant in terra.		Wherefore he adds exposing: and not revenge us or our blood of these who live on Earth.
Per hoc autem quod dicitur, usquequo, notatur dilatio generalis resurrectionis, quam desiderant: in qua et boni amplius remunerandi sunt, et mali puniendi: quasi dicat: quamdiu differs vindictam recipere de nostris persequutionibus, et tuorum praemium consummare?		But by this which is said "how long?" is noted the delay before the general resurrection, which they desire, in which both the good will be more widely rewarded and the bad [more widely] punished: as if saying: how long delayest thou [our] receiving revenge for our persecutions and consummate the reward of thine own?
Aliqui libri habent alio ordine literam; non judicas et vindicas sanguinem etc., eadem expositio est.		Some books have in another order textually "not judge and revenge our blood" etc and the explanation is the same.
Sed objicitur de hoc quod dicunt, usquequo: quia si sic desiderant; ergo cum differatur affliguntur; quia Proverb. 13, spes quae differtur affligit animam.		But it's objected since they say "how long": since if they desire thus, then they are afflicted by delay; Proverbs 13 Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul:
Item sciunt illud quod desiderant esse futurum, scilicet suae gloriae consummationem, et divinae justitiae manifestationem in malis.		Likewise they know that that which they desire will be, namely consummation of their glory and God's justice on the bad made manifest.
Quare ergo petunt? Respondeo.		Why then are they asking? I answer.
Ad primum dicendum, quod desiderare aliquid fieri est dupliciter.		To the first is to say, to desire sth to come about is twofold.
Aut fieri statim: et sic dilatio affligit expectatorem.		Either that it come about now: and then delay afflicts the one hoping.
Aut fieri opportuno tempore: et sic ex dilatione non est afflictio: manet tamen desiderii continuatio.		Or that it come about in due time: and this way delay isn't affliction: but the continual desire remains.
Hoc autem modo secundo est in animabus beatis: conformant enim bonitatem suam divinae; nec volunt resurrectionem generalem fieri, nisi secundum quod dominus ordinavit eam futuram; tamen eam desideranter expectant, et ideo dicunt: usquequo et cetera.		But this second way is with blessed souls: for they are conforming their goodness to that of God; and they don't want the general resurrection to happen, other than according to how the Lord decreed it to be upcoming; nonetheless they expect it with desire, hence say: how long, etc.
Gregorius: non quicquam desiderant, quod ab ejus, quem cernunt, voluntate discordet.		Gregory: they desire not anything, which could discord from the will of the One they see.
Ad secundum dicendum, secundum beatum Gregorium, quod suum petere, est desiderium suum ad dominum extendere:		To the second is to say, acc. to Bl. Gregory, that asking one's own is extending one's own desire to the Lord:
petunt autem extremum judicium et gloriae resurrectionem, licet non ignorent venturum:		but they ask the Last Judgement and the Resurrection of Glory, while not being uncertain it will come:
tum propter desiderii vehementiam,		both for the vehemence of desire,
tum propter voluntatem divinam; quia Deus vult eos hoc petere, cum ipsa petitio cedat in ipsius Dei magnificationem;		and for God's will; since God wills them to ask this, as the asking itself magnifies God Himself;
a quo tantum bonum dandum speratur, et sine quo non habetur;		from Whom they hope that much good to be granted, and without Whom it is not had;
et faciat etiam ad gloriae manifestandam magnitudinem.		and do it also to the manifestation of the magnitude of glory.
Gregorius, super hunc locum: in ipso positae sanctorum animae, de ipso accipiunt, ut ab ipso petant, quod eum facere velle noverunt: de ipso bibunt, quod ab ipso sitiunt; et modo nobis adhuc incomprehensibili, quod petendo esuriunt praesciendo satiantur.		Gregory, on this passage: in Him are posed the souls of saint, of Him they receive that they may ask of Him, what they know Him to want to do: of Him they drink which of Him they thirst, and in a way we cannot yet understand, that they hunger in asking which they are filled with foreknowing.
Item objicitur de hoc quod dicitur: et vindicas etc.: quia dicitur Eccles. 28, qui vindicari vult et cetera. Levit. 19, non quaeras ultionem. Item Matth. 5, diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos.		Also is objected on this that it is said "and revenge" etc.: since it is said Eccl. 28, He that seeketh to revenge himself etc. Lev. 19 Seek not revenge, also Mt. 5, love your enemies, do good to these who hate you.
Full passages: He that seeketh to revenge himself, shall find vengeance from the Lord, and he will surely keep his sins in remembrance Qui vindicari vult, a Domino inveniet vindictam, et peccata illius servans servabit. [Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 28:1] Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens. Thou shalt love thy friend as thyself. I am the Lord Non quaeras ultionem, nec memor eris injuriae civium tuorum. Diliges amicum tuum sicut teipsum. Ego Dominus. [Leviticus 19:18] But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you Ego autem dico vobis : Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos : [Matthew 5:44]
Si dicas quod principaliter intendunt petere generalem resurrectionem, non persequutorum damnationem, quae eis placeat ex odio, tunc quaeritur ad quid de vindicta loquantur.		If you might say they foremost mean to ask the general resurrection, not the damnation of persecutors which could please them from hatraed, then why are they speaking of revenge?
Respondeo ad hoc intelligendum, quod beatae animae intelliguntur hic petere extremum judicium et resurrectionem, ubi earum gloria ex corporum glorificatione augebitur, et numerus salvandorum complebitur, et divina justitia in impiorum damnatione manifestabitur.		I answer it should be understood, that blessed souls are understood here to ask the Last Judgement and Resurrection, where their glory will be augmented by glorification of bodies, and the number of those to be saved be completed and divine justice be manifest in the damnation of the impious.
Cedent autem haec tria beatis in cumulum gaudii: scilicet plenitudo suae gloriae, plena societas caelestis curiae, et complacentia divinae justitiae.		Now these three go into the heaping of joy for the blessed: namely fulness of their own glory, full society of the court of Heaven, complacence with God's justice.
Quod autem ita sit, apparet ex textu sequenti, ubi dicitur, et datae sunt, item et dictum est eis.		But that this be so, apears from the following where it's said and white robes, also and it was said to them.
Verse 11: And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up Et datae sunt illis singulae stolae albae : et dictum est illis ut requiescerent adhuc tempus modicum donec compleantur conservi eorum, et fratres eorum, qui interficiendi sunt sicut et illi. [Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:11]
Item Glossa, desiderant. Item Gregorius super hunc locum: quid est animas vindictae petitionem dicere, nisi diem extremi judicii et resurrectionem extinctorum corporum desiderare?		Also the Glodd, "they desire" Also Gregory hereon: what means it that souls ask revenge, other than they desire the Last Judgement and the resurrection of bodies that were extinct?
Ad illas auctoritates dicendum, quod velle vindictam est dupliciter.		To these authorities is to say, wanting revenge is twofold.
Aut ex libidine vindictae sive malitiae: et hoc est illicitum: et sic loquuntur illae auctoritates.		Either of appetite for revenge, or illwill: and this is illicit, and this is how these authorities speak.
Aut ex zelo justitiae: et sic est licitum. Dicendum igitur, quod beatae animae potius vellent malos hic correctos, quam in futuro damnari: sed cum sciant eos, qui sunt incorrigibiles, in futuro damnandos;		Or from zeal of justice: and this way it is licit. Therefore one should say, the blessed souls rather would want the bad corrected here than damned in the hereafter, but as they know them, that they are incorrigible, going to be damned hereafter,
placet eis, quod divinae justitiae placere noverunt.		it pleases them what they know pleasing to God's justice.
https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/x2a05.html#91210

So, the 613 laws include such ones that point to different more important things, like they point to not mixing Hebrew truth with Pagan error, one of which is a view of the afterlife in which murder victims need revenge in a terrestrial sense for their peace in the hereafter, it's taken from Greek Tragedy, The Libation Bearers or Electra or both attribute such an anguish to Agamemnon as long as his murderous and adulterous wife is not killed, as stated this is not the Catholic and genuinely Hebrew position. In precepts also, one must not mix with Nordic Pagan endorsement of drunkenness as licit (though not very advisable) or with old Zalmoxian total bans on wine. Endorsing deliberately getting soak drunk or pretending everyone or every just man has to abstain from alcohol is another example of two Pagan errors we must not mix to the truth.

The Noahide laws pretend one of them is, a strict duty to erect tribunals in which murder is punished by death penalty or even in which other faults are punished by death penalty. But that is not what Genesis 9 says. It says God will reclaim the blood, not men are obliged to reclaim the blood. In Romans 13, we learn that the Roman public power, the Caesar, was God's servant ... but God is still principal and He has not revealed that such tribunals are a necessity, especially not in Genesis 9, unlike the wrongful reading by Noahides. I am not personally sure if the public power has retained this status (especially in Europe) since 1918, when the last Caesar left Hofburg, Vienna. It is probable that the Antichrist not only has no right to death penalty against God's faithful, but maybe even not to any death penalty at all, even against murderers, because the power under him is no longer what Romans 13 describes. What comes between 1918 and the world wide rule of the Antichrist, I don't know.

So, given that the Natural Law is not the 613 commandments and not the "7 Noahide laws", what is it? Here is a Christian take:

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel
[Romans 2:13-16]

Here is the take of a Gentile, Plato:

Wise men tell us...that heaven and earth and gods and men are held together by communion and friendship, by orderliness, temperance, and justice; and that is the reason...why they call the whole of this world by the name of order, not of disorder or dissoluteness.

Plato, Gorgias 507e6-508a4, as cited by Brague, Wisdom of the World, p. 29.

Cited in Plato and Natural Law on the Lonergan Institute.

This is one of C. S. Lewis' favourite topics. Some have misunderstood me as a disciple of Guénon when I have simply been referring to this. The "world" being called "order" in Gorgias refers to the Greek word "cosmos" ... As a loan word it means cosmos or world in a TV Series by Carl Sagan and in the Russian compound cosmonaut. It means "order" or "beauty" in "cosmetics" and "cosmetic surgery".

Here is the take of a Christian Philosopher, a disciple both of St. Augustine and of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, As stated above (I-II:90:1 ad 1), law, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article 1); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.

I—II, Question 91. The various kinds of law
Article 2. Whether there is in us a natural law? (corpus of article)
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2091.htm#article2

Given the reference is "everyone" (except madmen and very immature) the content can be argued about. This doesn't prove the concept is wrong or illusory. Nor that argument can change the content.

Normally, the idea that a just state can condemn people to death for doing very evil acts, and much of what acts are very evil, is a precept of the natural law. Key word: can. Not must. And a state also cannot illegalise actually good acts under pain of death penalty. Like burying one's brother. Antigone. Or like praying to the true God and not to the statue of Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel. Or being a Catholic Christian.

In this sense, first question is answered. Death penalty is, under some circumstances at least, licit under the Natural law, for a legitimate state.

Second question, does it remain licit in all states that are legitimate to some degree or legal?

I have already stated my opinion, that it could be not just illicit for the Antichrist, in his illegal and illegitimate powers, but even in his possibly legal and legitimate powers, if any. And that it could be less licit or illicit after the fall of the Roman Caesarian power after World War I.

What are my arguments?

Biblically, Genesis 9 as said does not enjoin on human society to make tribunals that deal out death penalty. God is the principal in reclaiming the blood of the killed.

Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God But increase you and multiply, and go upon the earth, and fill it
[Genesis 9:4-7]

The ban on eating blood foods is not mentioned as of itself obliging, but as paedagogic. Men were to abstain from blood foods in order to avoid getting a lust for blood that could lead to murder. The injunction about fertility implies that contraception is next after murder (which is also what the Catholic Church holds about the natural law). And the principal Avenger of the human blood shed is God. He does not here name any accessory one. There can hardly be one for lots of human victims of lethal animal attacks and yet we are assured if a cobra kills someone in the wilderness, that cobra will pay for it.

His blood shall be shed, yes, this can be considered as a command of sorts. But God does not specify by whom.* However, he does specify so on two occasions:

He that striketh and killeth a man, dying let him die.
[Leviticus 24:17]

This was said with relation to Hebrew death penalty. But the time for that is past.

Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death
[John 18:31]

So, did any power at this time have the right to enact death penalty? Yes:

For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil
[Romans 13:3-4]

Latin has "principes" and Greek has "ἄρχοντες" — the Latin word refers to "princeps senatus" (Caesar Augustus assumed that title) and the Greek probably also that, but also in reference to Hellenistic rulers.

But Jesus called them to him, and said: You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon them
[Matthew 20:25]

Greek has ἄρχοντες. The parallel text in Luke refers explicitly to Hellenistic rulers:

And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent
[Luke 22:25]

"Beneficient" = εὐεργέται — confer this list:

Archelaus I of Macedon supplied wood to Athens, taking the titles of proxenos and euergetes in 407/6 BC, Diogenes Euergetes a Macedonian commander who was named euergetes by the Athenians, Antigonus III Doson, king of Macedon from 229-221 BC, was called Euergetes.

Alexander I Theopator Euergetes, Seleucid king, reigned 150-145 BC, Antiochus VII Euergetes, Seleucid king, reigned 138–129 BC, Attalus III Philometor Euergetes, king of Pergamon, reigned 138–133 BC, Mithridates V Euergetes, king of Pontus, reigned 150–120 BC, Nicomedes III Euergetes, king of Bithynia, reigned 127–94 BC,

Ptolemy III Euergetes, king of Egypt, reigned 246–222 BC, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, king of Egypt, reigned 169–164, 144–132, 126–116 BC, Telephos Euergetes, Indo-Greek ruler, reigned 75–70 BC, Tiraios I Euergetes, king of Characene, reigned 95/94-90/89 BC, Demetrius III Theos Philopator Soter Philometor Euergetes Callinicus, Seleucid king, reigned 96–87 BC

The feminine form Euergetis (Εὐεργέτις) was also used: Cleopatra Euergetis, queen of Egypt, reigned 142–131, 127–101 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euergetes

Of these, only Diogenes Euergetes was not a King or monarchic ruler.

7 D Adventists pretend that the Catholic Church was the fourth beast of Daniel, unlike other kingdoms by being primarily religious. I disagree. Rome was the fourth beast, unlike by being a Republic while spreading and expanding. "Ten horns" can be taken about Caesars up to Otho, but I find it more probable it is about the Decemviri that Rome had more than one bunch of, both as legislators (twice) and in other qualities (like settling land disputes). Caesars are the katekhon, not by being aliens to the fourth beast, but by diluting its uniqueness, the Democratic feature in a world empire.** Or, as it easily becomes in such cases, the Oligarchic masquerading as Democratic.

So, the post-1918 régimes have by and large been hankering back to Senatorial Rome, or in the case of Constitutional Monarchies, remodelled themselves are such. Oscar II of Sweden was a crowned and anointed monarch, the last such, as well as the first Bernadotte recognised by the older Dynasty and by Catholic kings. His son Gustaf V was not anointed, in adaptation to the spirit of the times. During his reign, soon after 1918, namely 30 June 1921, death penalty in peace time was abolished. Either his son Gustaf VI Adolf or his great-grandson our current king Carl XVI Gustaf saw abolition of death penalty in war time even.

Sometimes the Democratic ideal becomes reality and sometimes in somewhat brutal confrontations. Not sure how many are aware of what happened on October 17 this year, in Paris, but I assure you, bikes with plastic details were burning and tear gas was thrown for hours and in more than just one street. What would happen if a mob of protesters or a mob of their repressers had death penalty as a possible option if once in power they took revenge on the other side?

Another reason is, post-1918 régimes are more influenced by Jews. Not stating any kind of "Jews are running everything" but they clearly influence more than before. However, what was the idea back 2000 years ago?

Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death
[John 18:31]

A third reason is, deviation from the natural law. The United States has states banning abortion from conception, which is good, but other states do not, and Gay marriage, deeply against the natural law, both by condoning sodomy and by hindering the process for one of the participants to contract a real marriage, between himself and a woman or herself and a man, is legal in the United States. Contraception had been so even earlier.

However, this is speculative, and we now go to the ...

Third Question: must each death penalty be carried out, if legally pronounced?

No. It does not have to. Full pardon or commutation to prison, perpetual or temporary, is possible.

A certain adulteress was caught in the act. For some reason, her accomplice in crime was not brought as accused to the lynch mob.

Jesus told her: Go, and sin no more.

In pardoning her, Our Lord actually stoned both an adulterer and an adulteress, the first idol and idolater in the universe. The pardon of the woman was a stone thrown on the Devil.

In royal functions there is a prerogative in ordering the execution (and as Franco was quasi-royal, he left this duty to no subordinate) but there is also a prerogative of pardon, fully or partially.

It is not impious of a chief of state to use it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XXIst Lord's Day after Pentecost
18.X.2026

* At least not in Vulgate, Douay Rheims depending on Vulgate, or LXX as verified on Ellopos. In the Hebrew interlinear, it states : šō·p̄êḵ (whoever sheds) dam (blood) hā·’ā·ḏām (of the man), bā·’ā·ḏām (by the man), dā·mōw (his blood) yiš·šā·p̄êḵ (shall be shed); ... I find it possible that this extra bā·’ā·ḏām is an error.

** Democracies are pretty commonplace on a local level. Athens never was a more than regional power. The Old Covenant counterpart of the Antichrist, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was a vassal to the Roman Senate. The law Nero used to persecute Christians was Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, either painting Christian masses as Bacchanals or making the law a model for his new decree.