Two Franciscans Presumably (or for one certainly) Against Death Penalty (Neither of them is For the Shooting)

Should We Kill Charlie Kirk's Assassin? (Fr. Boniface Hicks)
More Pints With Aquinas | 16 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS2eMVH-YLo

15:40 The law was not to kill her alone.

Now, this law was a civil law for Israel, later for Judah and Israel, an applied insofar as Judah had autonomous jurisdiction.

However, this is a prophecy in Genesis, namely 49:10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.

Now, Jesus had already come, so, Judah could have and actually had lost autonomy, after Archelaos:

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]

In other words, before Pilate, Jews recognised they had lost the authority to mete out death penalty. Perhaps this applied only to men in the sense of males, though I doubt it, but if so, that would make the stoning of an adulteress only (without the adulterer) a "norm" that contrasted with the actual Mosaic norm for an independent Hebrew state.

I would say that He Who is without sin threw a stone on the first adulterer and first adulteress in the universe, Satan, and that stone was inscribed with Et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis.

Probably the reason why the first Pope's new name was Peter.

He did not throw a stone on the woman, whom nobody could any more judge according to Jewish law.

We Need to Talk About Charlie Kirk
Breaking In The Habit | 19 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wsllpI3fpQ

["They literally don't know who the other is."]

3:01 You mean like between Tel Aviv and Gaza?

4:42 Actually, there is some unhinged hatred, when, a) a Lesbian argued against a CK position from Leviticus 19, b) CK reminded her of a thing in Leviticus 18 and c) Stephen King pretended CK wanted to stone LGBTQ people today.

On some parts, it's a question of unhinged credulity, being ready to believe any bad thing about CK. On some parts, it's a question of more, of actually wanting to distort or at least spontaneously distorting through one's filters what one hears the other person saying.

Not saying this is inexistent on the right, but (biassed as I am) I don't find it as prominent.

8:24 "Division is profitable"

Sounds a bit like the point a certain de La Tour du Pin was making against both Capitalism and Communism ... René, Count de La Tour du Pin.

By the way, did CK ever make that point too?

13:06 Whatever success rating you are giving CK, you are certainly for what he was at least trying to do.