In an interview with MSNBC, Democrat House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, reacted strongly to San Francisco Roman Catholic Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone’s decision to ban Pelosi from receiving communion because of her support of abortion, The Blaze reports.
The Roman Catholic Church is pro-life, and reserves communion for baptized members of the church, who are in good standing.
Any members who commit a grave since, which includes support of abortion, must perform the ‘sacrament of reconciliation’, before they can receive communion, The Blaze added.
Pelosi challenged Cordileone’s announcement by asking why the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t treat people who support the death penalty in the same way. The Roman Catholic Church has taken a stand against the death penalty.
Although the Roman Catholic Church does not support the death penalty, many pro-life supporters do and pro-abortionists have often wondered how people can be opposed to abortion while supporting the death penalty?
Though it seems like a contradiction, the opposition to abortion and support of the death penalty are for the same reason.
It involves the value of human life.
In the case of abortion, some extremists support abortion up to the moment of birth and get around any moral issues by devaluing the human life inside the woman by calling it a fetus.
By treating it as little more than an animal, some pro-abortionists argue that a fetus can be put down any time a woman wants, up to the moment of birth. READ: BREAKING: Congress introduces bill to allow abortion up to birth, eliminating all pro-life laws
But unlike an animal, a fetus can be cruelly disposed of, which includes suffering extreme pain during abortion procedures. The fetus doesn’t even have the rights given to animals. READ: Unborn babies can feel pain before the 24-week abortion limit, scientists say
And oddly, this principle of devaluation also applies in instances of first-degree murder.
When a person purposefully murders an individual and is sentenced to a few years in prison, it devalues the life of the person who was murdered.
For example, Robert Picton, arguably the most infamous mass murderer in Canadian history, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007, with the possibility of parole after 25 years, for murdering 49 women.
He started murdering the women, mostly prostitutes, in the 1980s and while police found evidence of the women at Picton’s pig farm, authorities never discovered any bodies because it’s believed they were fed to the pigs.
Though Picton ultimately confessed to killing 49 women, his sentence devalued each of those women’s lives to a year or less of imprisonment.
Abortion and ending the death penalty are part of the same pattern, the persistent devaluation of human life.
How the eye for an eye law resisted devaluation
And we can see this resistance to devaluation demonstrated clearly in Old Testament law that talks about an eye for an eye punishment (Exodus 21:24).
According to the law, if you damaged a person’s eye, you received the same punishment. It seems to involve retribution.
However, when you read the Bible, you do not see any instance of where an eye for eye or tooth for tooth punishment was ever applied.
This is because the eye for eye aspect of the law was never intended as retribution, but it was used to determine the amount of money needed to compensate the person whose eye had been damaged.
If a person gouged out another’s eye, he had to pay a ransom to the victim as compensation. If the perpetrator refused, the option was there to gouge out his or her eye, so obviously they were motivated to pay the money.
We see this compensation playing out in Numbers, where Moses says that a person charged for murder was not eligible to pay a ransom and must be put to death.
“Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.” (Numbers 35:31 NASV)
By implication, this meant that a person could pay a ransom for all lesser crimes, such as damaging an eye or tooth, and for this reason, the Jewish Rabbis treated eye for eye law as a way of calculating compensation.
Only first-degree murder was exempt from this payment because no amount of money could be used to determine the value of a human life.
I go into more detail on this in my first podcast: