Refuting ten Bergoglian errors about capital punishment…
Bergoglian Naturalism on Display:
New ‘Pope Video’ seeks Abolition of Death Penalty
The Vatican has released the September 2022 edition of its monthly Pope Video.
Begun in January of 2016 with a bold promotion of Indifferentism, the Pope Video is an elaborate way to showcase “Pope” Francis’ prayer intentions for each month. It is an initiative of the so-called Pope’s Worldwide Prayer Network.
For September 2022, the intention of the man otherwise known as Jorge Bergoglio is “for the abolition of the death penalty”, and it is phrased as follows: “We pray that the death penalty, which attacks the dignity of the human person, may be legally abolished in every country.”
Not surprisingly, Vatican News has wasted no time reporting on it, even a day ahead of schedule. The French-based La Croix International adds that the video “was produced in collaboration with the Catholic Mobilizing Network, a U.S. based Catholic organization working to end the death penalty and promote restorative justice through education, advocacy, and prayer.”
The video created for this intention is two minutes long and can be watched here:
It was four years ago that the fake pope from Buenos Aires made an official change to the 1994 so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, essentially changing the Novus Ordo teaching, which already differed from the timeless Roman Catholic doctrine, from capital punishment being sometimes permitted to being never permitted.
Even before the official revision of 2018, however, Bergoglio had voiced his opposition to capital punishment at least once a year since his usurpation of the papal throne:
- 2013: “Papal Message Reaffirms Call to Abolish Death Penalty” (National Catholic Register)
- 2014: Address to the Delegates of the International Association of Penal Law (Vatican.va)
- 2015: Letter to International Commission against the Death Penalty (Zenit)
- 2016: Video Message to the Sixth World Congress against the Death Penalty (Vatican.va)
Most notable was his allocution of Oct. 11, 2017 (included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis CIX [Nov. 2017], pp. 1192-97), which conveniently serves now as the needed footnote in the Novus Ordo Catechism (see par. 2267).
In 2019, too, the false pope did not miss the opportunity to unload his Naturalist bilge on the Seventh World Congress Against the Death Penalty.
The Message of the latest Pope Video
Let us now go ahead and look at the transcript of the September 2022 Pope Video, examining its contents critically. In it the Jesuit pseudo-pope declares the following:
Each day, there is a growing “NO” to the death penalty around the world. For the Church, this is a sign of hope.
From a legal point of view, it is not necessary.
Society can effectively repress crime without definitively depriving the offenders of the possibility of redeeming themselves.
Always, in every legal sentence, there must be a window of hope.
Capital punishment offers no justice to victims, but rather encourages revenge.
And it prevents any possibility of undoing a possible miscarriage of justice.
Additionally, the death penalty is morally inadmissible, for it destroys the most important gift we have received: life. Let us not forget that, up to the very last moment, a person can convert and change.
And in the light of the Gospel, the death penalty is unacceptable. The commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” refers to both the innocent and the guilty.
I, therefore, call on all people of goodwill to mobilize for the abolition of the death penalty throughout the world.
Let us pray that the death penalty, which attacks the dignity of the human person, may be legally abolished in every country.
What “Pope” Francis presents here is an enormous load of sophisms, half-truths, false assumptions, and irrelevancies.
Let’s summarize the above in outline fashion. According to the Pope-playing apostate from Buenos Aires, the death penalty is morally wrong because:
- it is not necessary legally, that is, it is not necessary for the repression of crime
- it needlessly deprives the offender definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself
- it does not provide the offender with a window of hope
- it does not provide justice to victims
- it encourages revenge
- once applied, it cannot be undone in the event of a miscarriage of justice
- it destroys life, which is the most important gift we have received
- it deprives people of additional time to convert and change
- it violates the Fifth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”
- it attacks the dignity of the human person
Let us now respond to each of these gratuitous and mostly erroneous assertions.
Error #1: The death penalty isn’t necessary
Whether the death penalty is necessary for the repression of crime is actually quite irrelevant. The reason is that if capital punishment is intrinsically wrong, then no necessity can justify it; and if capital punishment is intrinsically lawful, then the necessity of the repression of crime would only come into play if its morality were dependent on that very thing, which it is not. The repression of crime is a desirable effect of capital punishment; it is not its chief purpose.
Secondly, we must point out that it is silly to think that capital punishment does not repress crime. Of course it does. Punishment is a deterrent by its very nature, since no one likes to be punished. The more severe the punishment, the greater the deterrent effect. If 30 years in prison are a greater deterrent than 5 years in prison, then execution will generally be a greater deterrent than 30 years’ imprisonment.
Therefore, Bergoglio’s first error is twofold: he implicitly assumes, falsely, that the main reason given for the legitimacy of capital punishment is the repression of crime; and he declares, without justification, that capital punishment is not necessary to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Error #2: The death penalty is wrong because it ends all possibility of redemption
The claim that capital punishment needlessly deprives the offender definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself is a half-truth at best.
Firstly, the idea that executing convicted capital offenders is “needless” assumes as true Bergoglio’s first error, already refuted.
Secondly, it is true, of course, that once applied, the death penalty is definitive by its very nature. This, however, is no argument against its licitness, it merely underscores its seriousness, which in turn reflects the seriousness of the crime the capital offender committed.
Thirdly, Bergoglio is probably using the term “redemption” in a Naturalistic sense here, applying it to the temporal world. It is true that a man who is executed at, say, age 45 has less time to attempt to make reparation of some kind for his crime (insofar as that is even possible in the temporal order) than a man who dies in prison at age 81. However, it does not follow that therefore the death penalty is unjust or wrong, since the capital offender is not owed the longest possible time to redeem himself.
As regards the supernatural order, the man awaiting execution is called to offer his just punishment to God and unite it with the Sacrifice of Calvary so as to make it spiritually availing for himself and others: to atone for his own crimes and sins, for his eternal salvation, for the souls in purgatory, for the conversion of sinners, and for the salvation of others. In this way, he can and ought to “redeem himself”, so to speak.
A natural redemption in the sense of trying to make amends in whatever ways are possible in the natural-temporal order for the crime he has committed, is not thereby ruled out, of course. Obviously, his temporal life is limited, but it is limited necessarily on account of the divine death sentence given for original sin: “…this sentence is from the Lord upon all flesh” (Ecclus [Sir] 41:5); “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23a); “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27).
We will return to this later in our refutation of Error #8.
Error #3: The death penalty takes away hope
The claim that there is no hope for someone sentenced to death is true only if we understand “hope” in a Naturalist sense, as Francis of course does. By “hope” he means a confident expectation of improvement in the conditions of temporal life, either by having the death sentence commuted to life in prison, or even by being released after a certain amount of time.
In that sense there may indeed be “no hope” for the condemned criminal, but then such temporal hope does not exist for anyone else either, since all of us labor under a divine death sentence and could die at any moment, and eventually we all will. Those who seek their happiness in this world will ultimately only reap death: “For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it” (Lk 9:24).
The only kind of genuine hope we can have is the hope of eternal salvation, expressed in the Act of Hope: “O my God, relying on Thy almighty power and infinite mercy and promises, I hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace, and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer. Amen.” This hope is a theological virtue, and it is by no means diminished or unavailable for someone who has been condemned to death. As long as even the greatest sinner has the true Faith, there is still the hope of repentance, forgiveness, and salvation (cf. Rom 8:4; Heb 11:6).
From these truths we can glean the great importance of the true Gospel, of genuine evangelization and missionary activity — indeed, of proselytism!
Error #4: The death penalty does not provide justice
Next is the gratuitous claim that the execution of the criminal does not provide justice to the victims.
To claim, without any type of evidence or argument, that the death penalty does not provide justice, is pretty bold. Granted, the murder victim himself will obviously not benefit in any way from the execution of his killer, but then that is also not what capital punishment is meant to accomplish.
The truth is that justice is had when the punishment is proportionate to the crime and restores the violated order, wherefore God Himself decreed the death sentence for murder even long before He gave the Ten Commandments to Moses: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God” (Gen 9:6).
When St. Dismas, the Good Thief, hung on the cross next to our Lord, he rebuked Gestas, the Bad Thief, for blaspheming Christ. In doing so, he confirmed the lawfulness of the death sentence against himself and Gestas: “Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil” (Lk 23:40-41).
Our Blessed Lord Himself bore witness to the lawfulness of the death penalty in principle when He told Pontius Pilate: “Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above” (Jn 19:11). Although, of course, Christ’s condemnation was unjust since He was entirely innocent, our Lord did not question the lawfulness of capital punishment as such but in fact confirmed it by His remarks to Pilate. If the death penalty were “per se contrary to the Gospel”, as Francis now claims, our Lord could not have said what He did say to Pilate.
Of course there are also limitations to justice in this world. The execution of a man who murdered another in cold blood is just; but if the same man had already murdered 18 other people, then one might say the execution is unjust in the sense that the criminal only has to give his one life, whereas he took away a total of 19 lives. But then that is presumably not the kind of injustice Francis is concerned about.
Error #5: The death penalty fuels revenge
Entertaining a desire for revenge is immoral, and the occasioning or harboring of such a desire in people may indeed be an unhappy and unintended effect of capital punishment. However, this problem is not unique to the death penalty, since any and all punishment could be the occasion of someone desiring revenge. (In fact, revenge may actually be fueled precisely by punishment that is viewed as being too lenient.) Therefore, it cannot be used as an argument against the legitimacy of capital punishment without at the same time arguing against the morality of all punishment.
The prohibition of revenge, we might add, applies to all as individuals, not to the state as such. This is confirmed directly in the New Testament, where St. Paul speaks of the secular power thus: “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” (Rom 13:4). Hence the traditional Roman Catechism teaches: “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, Fifth Commandment).
Error #6: The death penalty is wrong because it cannot be undone
Obviously it cannot be denied that in the event of a miscarriage of justice, the death penalty, once carried out, cannot be undone. The execution of an innocent man is a horrific tragedy that must be avoided at all reasonable costs. In our world there is much corruption, there is dullness of mind, there is much sin and little holiness. In many trials in the Western world, the presumption of innocence turns out to have been defeated not by clear evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but merely by a more or less reasonable suspicion that the defendant could be guilty. Obviously such a travesty of justice is an intolerable abomination!
However, none of this is an argument against the death penalty in itself. It is, at best, an argument that the death sentence should not be used in societies where miscarriages of justice occur more than very rarely. And indeed it should not. But then, as a general rule, no defendant should receive any punishment if his guilt has not been established with certitude beyond all reasonable doubt.
Aside from these considerations, we must also point out that, just like the execution of an innocent man cannot be undone, neither can decades-long imprisonment of the wrong man be undone. Not a single day someone has spent in prison unjustly can ever be restored.
The solution is not to militate against certain kinds of punishment; the solution is to ensure that only the guilty get convicted.
Error #7: The death penalty destroys the most important thing we have
Bergoglio claims that capital punishment is immoral because “it destroys the most important gift we have received: life.” There the Argentinian apostate reveals his Naturalism again. If he were a Catholic, that is, if he actually believed in the Gospel, he would know that the life of the soul is much more important than the life of the body: “For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?” (Mk 8:35-36); “And if thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:42).
By Bergoglio’s logic, that which our Blessed Lord declared to be the greatest act of charity — “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jn 15:13; cf. 1 Jn 3:16) — would actually be the dumbest thing one could do, indeed a most immoral thing, for it too “destroys the most important gift we have received: life”, according to the Bergoglian ideology.
Indeed, Francis’ idiotic comment makes a mockery of all Catholic martyrs, who preferred to give up the alleged “most important gift we have received” for the sake of a greater and supernatural good, such as testifying to the true Faith, preserving holy purity, refusing the worship of a false god, or, more generally, simply retaining the state of sanctifying grace in their souls.
Clearly, the death of the soul is much more to be feared than the death of the body, which is precisely why our Lord Jesus Christ solemnly warned: “And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him” (Lk 12:4-5). Isn’t it amazing that Bergoglio never preaches on hell?
In any case, in an address given on Sep. 14, 1952, Pope Pius XII made clear that when it comes to the secular authority carrying out a death sentence, “the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live” (n. 33; italics given).
Error #8: The death penalty is wrong because it deprives the offender of more time to convert
The argument that administering a death sentence takes away the criminal’s opportunity for change and amendment is not very strong. Yes, obviously, he who is dead can no longer change his life; however, he had ample opportunity to change his life before his execution. In the United States, at least, most death sentences are not carried out very swiftly. It often takes many years, even decades, before all appeals are exhausted and an execution is scheduled and administered.
Seemingly endless time for conversion and change can also have the opposite effect. The idea that “there is still time” before judgment can unduly prolong a genuine conversion and may end up having the effect of producing no conversion at all.
In Scripture, the exhortations to prepare for death are numerous: “Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour”, our Blessed Lord tells us (Mt 25:13). Out of the ten virgins that wanted to meet the bride and the groom, five didn’t make it because they weren’t prepared (see Mt 25:1-13). And St. Paul warned the Thessalonians “that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night” [1 Thess 5:2].
In fact, a convicted criminal’s conversion to Catholicism and his final perseverance in sanctifying grace are much more likely to become a reality when the individual is faced with a scenario of certain death within a relatively short amount of time. The thought of being faced with swift destruction and standing before the Just Judge in the very near future is a very salutary one and has no doubt led to many conversions.
We may quote here the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s Universal Doctor, who answers Bergoglio’s very objection in philosophical magnum opus Summa contra Gentiles:
Finally, the fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at the critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Book III, Ch. 146, n. 10)
We all know, however, that when Bergoglio complains about a lack of opportunity for amendment, he does not have in mind anything supernatural but merely the kind that seeks to redress wrongs on a natural level among men.
Error #9: The death penalty violates the Fifth Commandment
Bergoglio makes a rather brazen claim when he says that “in the light of the Gospel, the death penalty is unacceptable. The commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ refers to both the innocent and the guilty.”
Actually, it doesn’t. It doesn’t in the Old Testament and not in the New either.
For example, just after God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments (see Ex 20:2-17), He instructed him regarding many more particular covenantal laws, including what crimes would merit a death sentence, namely: “Sorcerers must not be allowed to live. The man who is guilty of bestiality must pay for it with his life. Sacrifice is for the Lord alone; he who offers it to other gods must be put to death.” (Ex 22:18-20; Knox translation).
We have already seen how the New Testament reiterates the lawfulness of the death penalty — in the Lord Jesus’ words to Pilate, in St. Paul’s words to the Romans, and in St. Dismas’ words to Gestas. Other passages can be adduced as well, such as Mt 15:4 or Heb 10:28.
The traditional Roman Catechism of the 16th century confirms that capital punishment is not a violation of the Fifth Commandment but “an act of paramount obedience to” it:
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord” (Ps 100:8).
(Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, Fifth Commandment)
Pope St. Pius V, who promulgated the above-quoted catechism, also issued a bull in which he decreed that unnatural acts against the Sixth Commandment by clergy were punishable by death:
…we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefice, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.
(Pope Pius V, Bull Horrendum Illud Scelus, n. 3)
It’s too bad St. Pius V didn’t realize that this was clearly contrary to the Gospel. Bummer!
Lastly, Pope Pius XII confirms that human life is not inviolable per se but only as long as one is not guilty of a capital offense:
There is no doubt that man by his own nature is destined to live in society; but even as reason alone teaches us, in principle society is made for man and not man for society. Not from society but from the Creator Himself has he the right to his body and his life, and to the Creator he is responsible for the use he makes of them. From this it follows that society cannot directly deprive him of that right, until he has rendered himself punishable with such a privation by a grave and proportionate crime.
As long as man is not guilty, his life is intangible [untouchable, inviolable], and, therefore, any act directly tending to destroy it is illicit, whether it be in embryonic form or in its full development, or even at its conclusion. Only God is the lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by death! The physician does not have the right to dispose of the life of either a child or its mother; and no one in the world, no private person, no human authority, may authorize him to proceed to its direct destruction. His office is not to destroy lives but to save them. These are fundamental and immutable principles….
(Pope Pius XII, Address La Vostra Presenza, Nov. 12, 1944; English found in Michael Chinigo, ed., The Pope Speaks: The Teachings of Pope Pius XII [New York, NY: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1957], pp. 111, 114; underlining added.)
It is clear, therefore, that if Francis is right, then the Catholic Church was wrong for 2000 years on such an important moral matter as whether executing convicted criminals is in keeping with, or contrary to, the Fifth Commandment and our Lord’s Gospel! Such an idea is not only absurd, it would also deprive the age-old and divinely-instituted Catholic Church of all moral credibility — which is, of course, precisely what Bergoglio wants to accomplish, or at least it is for him a very welcome effect.
At the same time, however, Bergoglio shoots himself in the foot too. For if the institution of which he is thought to be the head could be wrong for two millennia, without anybody noticing, then why should anyone think that he got it right now? It is a theater of the absurd.
Error #10: The death penalty attacks the dignity of man
The last erroneous claim in Francis’ video is that capital punishment “attacks the dignity of the human person”. This is an objection that is very often made, and modern man probably considers it to be almost self-evident. However, in what does the dignity of the human being consist? It consists in man having been made in the image and likeness of God and having been called to a supernatural end, namely, to share in Eternal Beatitude with His Creator in Heaven forever.
The image of God is typically understood to mean that, unlike brute animals, man has intellect (reason) and free will (the power to choose freely); the likeness to God refers to the gift of sanctifying grace, with which God gratuitously endowed Adam and Eve at their creation. With the fall of our first parents in the Garden of Eden, the image of God in us was darkened, and our likeness to God was lost. Our Blessed Lord and Savior mercifully became man for us, however, to redeem us and aid our fallen condition. He came to bring His definitive Revelation that is the Gospel (see Jn 1:17; Heb 1:1-2), to restore and increase grace in us through the sacraments, and to show us how to live lives pleasing to God. In order to ensure that His saving Truth and His sacraments would be available to all men for all time, the God who “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4) established an infallible Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
We have already seen what this Church teaches regarding the moral licitness of the death penalty. With regard to human dignity, we note that God has revealed to us that it is precisely because the victim of capital crime has human dignity that the death sentence is to be imposed: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God” (Gen 9:6).
What this means is that far from attacking human dignity, capital punishment actually defends it. It is by his own heinous crime that the offender has violated his dignity — state-administered death is merely the just penalty he must pay as the natural consequence of his act. Hence St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:
By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others.
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 64, a. 2, ad 3; underlining added.)
Funny how we never hear about that part of the truth about human dignity in the Vatican II Church.
Francis doesn’t approve of life sentences either
What Bergoglio, very conveniently, does not mention in his Pope Video for September 2022, is that not only does he oppose the death penalty, he also opposes life imprisonment.
Yes, you read that right. “Pope” Francis opposes life in prison because it is, so he claims, a “hidden death sentence”, inasmuch as the criminal is effectively condemned to dying in prison. And that — as you probably guessed — runs afoul of his Naturalist “hope” and “dignity” stuff. Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that life sentences without the possibility of parole are contrary to human dignity, so the idea is already gaining ground.
The argument itself is specious, however. Life sentences are not death sentences, neither hidden nor overt. The only way a life sentence could legitimately be called a “hidden death sentence” is if there were something inherent in the punishment itself that would bring about the offender’s death. For instance, if someone were condemned to extremely hard labor that one could reasonably expect to cause death within a fairly short amount of time, then this could be called a “hidden death sentence” — but that is obviously not the case for life imprisonment. What causes the death of someone who spends the rest of his life behind bars is simply the consequence of original sin. Ever since Adam and Eve first violated divine law, we have all labored under a lifelong death sentence, because this natural life inevitably ends in death: “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).
Don’t be surprised, therefore, if the abolition of life sentences will be Bergoglio’s prayer intention for next month.
Francis hates the death penalty because he is a Naturalist. In all of the above, we see the false pope’s insufferable Naturalism at work, that is, his incessant prioritization of the natural (temporal) life of the body over the supernatural (spiritual) life of the soul.
For him, our present natural-temporal life is “the most important gift we have received”, and for that reason, the greatest evil he can envision is for that life to end, to be taken away. But from the holy Gospel we know that desperately clinging to this temporal life is the greatest foolishness we can commit, because it is absolutely certain that we will lose it: “But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?” (Lk 12:20).
Francis is clever, though. In his official revision of the Novus Ordo Catechism he uses the dubious term “inadmissible” to describe the moral status of capital punishment. He conspicuously avoids using the term one would expect him to use, namely, “intrinsically evil”. Why is that?
One reason is probably that it would make the contradiction with 2000 years of prior Catholic teaching too obvious and therefore unmarketable. He can’t ruin the credibility of the true Church completely without also hurting his own authority.
Another possible reason would be that the Vatican is currently working behind the scenes to bring about a “paradigm shift” in morality, which was already anticipated with Francis’ infernal 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The idea is to move away from such “rigid” concepts as intrinsic evil and towards a kind of situation ethics, though surely disguised as something much more profound: “Norms for action in a particular area of existence do not fall from the sky, but originate in reflection upon the experience of those who have gone before us”, this heretical theology maintains.
Such “ethical existentialism” was condemned by Pope Pius XII decades ago and so is really not new. But now, with Bergoglio at the helm, it seems the propitious moment has finally arrived for all these infernal Modernist theologians to get rid of that pesky notion of intrinsic evil and bring about the paradigm shift for which they had been itching all those years. According to this “new morality”, nothing is evil in itself anymore; at best everything only participates in moral goodness to a greater or lesser extent. The consequence will be a complete revolution in moral theology that will make Amoris Laetitia look like a feeble attempt at child’s play. (Here is a preview of what’s in store.)
The following posts show how Catholicism rules out and refutes such a paradigm shift in moral theology:
- Pope Pius XII destroys Amoris Laetitia and Francis’ False-Mercy Gospel
- Subjective Morality: The Error of Amoris Laetitia Condemned and Refuted before Vatican II
- Holy Office Instruction Contra Doctrinam condemning “Situation Ethics” (1956)
In all of this, the philosophical adage is once again proven true that ideas have consequences. That is one of the reasons why the notion of complete freedom of thought is not a Catholic one but a Masonic one (cf. Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos).
The logic behind the Bergoglian ideology concerning death and life sentences is a very slippery slope that inevitably leads to the conclusion that all punishment is, by its very nature, a violation of human dignity and, as such, “inadmissible”.
Make no mistake about it: To say that the death sentence, in principle, is morally wrong and contrary to the Gospel, is itself morally wrong and contrary to the Gospel. What is morally inadmissible, therefore, is not capital punishment but the denial of its legitimacy.
More on Francis’ stance on the death penalty and his official change to the Novus Ordo Catechism can be found here:
- Francis declares Death Penalty universally “inadmissible” because an Attack on the Human Person
- Bergoglio’s Lethal Injection: Chaos ensues after Francis’ Death Penalty Update
- Capital Chaos: Francis Adherents scramble to explain Catechism Change on Death Penalty
By the way: There is a way to ensure that there will be no more capital punishment. It is by people no longer committing capital crimes. If people convert to the holy Catholic Faith and live virtuous lives, they will not perpetrate crimes that justly merit a sentence of death.
You can bet your bottom dollar, however, that that is one way of abolishing the death penalty the apostate from Buenos Aires will not be supporting.
Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use