In this recording, Archimandrite Athanasios Mytilinaios (1927-2006), talks about the death penalty and answers the question: “Do we have the right to kill a criminal?” “We shall not kill him. Why? Because if we get to the point of thinking that we should not kill him and prefer being killed by him instead, we have already conquered the Kingdom of God, because we have avoided a murder that we know should not happen. Meaning, we did not exercise our right to self-defense, which the courts would recognize. Instead, we offer him the chance to repent, if he repents.”
Audio source: “Catechism”, no. 93 (in Greek)
Fr. Athanasios:
“What is your opinion on the death penalty which has been abolished in our country [Greece]? In case a man is violent or he is a criminal and enters our home, do we have the right to kill him?
My dear ones, we’ve already spoken about the death penalty some weeks ago. I told you that the answer is difficult. It’s not easy to side with one view or the other. There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides. I will not answer this question again, except for the special circumstances given in the second part of the question, that is, when a man is violent or he is a criminal and he has broken into our home.
Let’s say that he has broken into our home to steal and we woke up to this. What shall we do? I will give you an answer with which of course I concur. I had heard this [particular] answer a long time ago, some 40 years ago during the Christian lessons given by Ioannis Kolitsaras whose 5-volumes interpretation of the New and Old Testament we have [in our library]. He had told us the following with which, as I said, I completely agree.
Surely, we have the right to kill the criminal who threatens our life. If he has just entered to steal and does not possess a gun, this will probably end up in a hand-to-hand combat. However, what happens when he has a gun? We do have a right to kill him, in case we maintain in our house a small gun, a rifle.
A small parenthesis: Never, ever have a gun in your house.
One might say, “What are you talking about?” When I was hospitalized once for my eye, a policeman asked me, “Father, do you have weapons in the monastery?”
“What? Weapons? What to do with them? God forbid!” I said.
“Why God forbid?” [the policeman answered].
I close the parenthesis: Do not have a gun into your home, although, as I said, some might not agree.
So, when the criminal projects a gun, we must do anything in our power to restrict him, to disarm him, anything in our power. But we shall not kill him. Why? Because if we get to the point of thinking that we should not kill him and prefer being killed by him instead, we have already conquered the kingdom of God, because we have avoided a murder that we know should not happen. Meaning, we did not exercise our right to self-defense, which the courts would recognize. Instead, we offer him the chance to repent, if he repents.
In case I kill him, I have done an evil, even if I was in self-defense. [In addition], his death deprives him of the chance to repent. This is the Christian, the evangelical opinion. Do you want to see how it is truthful?
I leave the fields of the Gospel and go to the political. Why was the death penalty abolished? For a number of reasons, among them, to provide the opportunity to the man who is still alive to reach repentance. When there was still the death penalty, the priest visited the cell of the condemned man in case he wanted to repent and receive the Holy Communion.
The opportunity to repent. Thus, if I do not kill him and “prefer” to die, I provide him with this opportunity.
I conclude. To me, if one [is in a position to] think in this way, whatever other sins he has committed and has already repented for them,
God will do justice to him, because he thought evangelically [in terms of the Gospel].