CathInfo.com

And it would just cause people to travel elsewhere if they wanted to commit adultery, to avoid being caught in their home country. If it were your native NZ, then they would just fly to Fiji, Australia, Bali, etc. and do it.

The wicked should always be in fear of holy justice. 

Again, while I agree more with Ladislaus on this issue, everyone here acting as if capital punishment for adultery is some Islamic or тαℓмυdic barbarism is still ridiculous. While it was far from the most common punishment(punishments like public humiliation and exile to a convent were more common, usually with the spouse getting a say in how severe it should be), the death penalty was still dished out in many Catholic countries for adultery. And that wasn't a secular abuse - the Bible condones it, and Flavius quoted a pope supporting it in the OP.

So honestly you can relax with the insults and insinuations.

I think the issue people have isn't so much with the principle of the thing as with Flavius' cocky self-righteous attitude ... and his bombastic condemnation, as if he himself were without sin.  I can see the guy being one of the potential stone throwers to whom Our Lord insisted that the one who is without sin should cast the first stone.  Flavius would have jumped to the front of the line, since he obviously imagines himself to be above the sinner, and looks down on them through his nose.  Were it not for the grace of God, so would we all go.

Some people (like the Pharisees condemned by Our Lord) condemn the sinner primarily in order to make themselves feel superior to them.  Even if it were required in justice, any true Christian would only execute such a one with the heaviest heart ... whereas one can easily imagine Flavius dancing for joy as he pulled the switch personally.  Notice how Our Lord had compassion on those who sinned from weakness ... but reserved His harshest condemnations for the Pharisees and their self-righteousness.  I would rather spent my time in the company of a contrite fallen adulterer than someone like Flabius.

I think the issue people have isn't so much with the principle of the thing as with Flavius' cocky self-righteous attitude ... and his bombastic condemnation, as if he himself were without sin.  I can see the guy being one of the potential stone throwers to whom Our Lord insisted that the one who is without sin should cast the first stone.  Flavius would have jumped to the front of the line, since he obviously imagines himself to be above the sinner, and looks down on them through his nose.  Were it not for the grace of God, so would we all go.

Some people (like the Pharisees condemned by Our Lord) condemn the sinner primarily in order to make themselves feel superior to them.  Even if it were required in justice, any true Christian would only execute such a one with the heaviest heart ... whereas one can easily imagine Flavius dancing for joy as he pulled the switch personally.  Notice how Our Lord had compassion on those who sinned from weakness ... but reserved His harshest condemnations for the Pharisees and their self-righteousness.  I would rather spent my time in the company of a contrite fallen adulterer than someone like Flabius.

Compared to Richard Ibranyi who threatens to kill others (including Bishop Fellay) in his lectures and issues ecclesiastical penances, what I am doing is relatively minor. All I am pointing out is the penalty for a certain crime and suggesting that it would be a good thing if it were carried out.