Francis: Death Penalty Does Not Bring Justice But Fuels Revenge!

Reality check on yet another ‘papal’ foreword…

Francis: Death Penalty Does Not Bring Justice But Fuels Revenge!

The Argentinian apostate Jorge Mario Bergoglio — aka ‘Pope Francis’ — may be a busy man, but somehow he always finds time to write yet another foreword to a new book he wants to show his approval of. Since the start of his fake pontificate in 2013, he has written enough prefaces to fill an entire book of its own.

One of the latest such contributions of His Loquaciousness is for the book Un Cristiano nel Braccio della Morte (“A Christian on Death Row”). It is being published by the Vatican (Libreria Editrice Vaticana) and was scheduled for release on Aug. 27, 2024. The author is 72-year-old Dale S. Recinella, an American layman and former lawyer who has worked in death-row prison ministry in Florida since 1998.

Francis’ foreword, dated July 18, 2024, has also been published online in English by Vatican News. On Aug. 18, it appeared under the title, “Pope: Death penalty never brings justice, but is a poison for society”, and of course it is filled with plenty of Bergoglio’s false, pseudo-Catholic theology, as we will show momentarily by critically examining some key passages.

Before we proceed, a quick clarification will be helpful: In this post, we are simply interested in refuting Francis’ errors concerning capital punishment as such. We are not necessarily trying to defend the death penalty as it is actually carried out in any particular country. Clearly there are many cases in our day in which a defendant does not receive a fair trial. It goes without saying that the death sentence — or any punishment, for that matter — can only be justly carried out if the guilt of the alleged criminal in question has been established by the lawful authority and beyond all reasonable doubt.

Dismantling Bergoglio’s Sophistry

In his foreword to Un Cristiano nel Braccio della Morte, the false pope writes:

[Recinella’s] is an extremely difficult, risky, and arduous task, because it touches evil in all its dimensions: the evil committed against the victims, which cannot be undone; the evil the condemned person is living through, knowing they are destined for certain death; the evil that, through the practice of the death penalty, is instilled in society.

There is no question that evil was committed against the victim(s) by the offender in question — assuming, of course, that he is truly guilty of the capital crime of which he has been convicted.

However, the other two ‘evils’ Francis speaks of exist only in his faithless mind, for “certain death” is actually the lot of every single one of us, as we have all been placed under a death sentence by God Himself, and very justly so: “…this sentence is from the Lord upon all flesh” (Ecclus [Sir] 41:5); “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” (Rom 5:12); “For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23).

Original sin and its consequences, especially death, is a topic that does not fit into his apostate Naturalist theology, so he often denies, ignores, or downplays it. Yet, to redeem us God did not even spare His own Son or His Blessed Mother from dying, even though neither of them was ever tainted by the least stain of sin!

That the one who is condemned to execution is experiencing his own mortality and the reality of certain death differently from most other people in the world is clear, but only an unbeliever would consider it a terrible thing to know the day and the hour one will be called to judgment — though of course always keeping in mind that one may be called by God a lot sooner and without prior warning.

The third ‘evil’ Francis sees is one allegedly “instilled in society” by the application of the death sentence. He elaborates on this in the lines that follow:

Yes, as I have repeatedly emphasized, the death penalty is in no way a solution to the violence that can strike innocent people.

It is clear that administering capital punishment alone will not stop all violent crime; but then, that is not its intended purpose anyway. It looks like Francis is throwing a red herring into the ring to distract from the real issues pertaining to the morality of the death penalty.

His Phoniness continues:

Capital executions, far from bringing justice, fuel a sense of revenge that becomes a dangerous poison for the body of our civil societies.

There are three claims the false pope makes here: (1) that capital punishment does not render justice; (2) that it fuels a spirit of revenge; (3) that revenge is dangerous poison for society.

Now these are some interesting assertions. Let’s look at each of them in order.

Is the Death Penalty Unjust?

As regards claim (1), that the death penalty does not render justice: This assertion is absurd on its face and made gratuitously. That is, no evidence is given for it, it is merely, well, asserted.

If, speaking very generally, justice is administered by inflicting on the guilty party a penalty that is proportionate to the crime committed, then obviously a capital crime will justly receive a capital punishment. The only way to attack the justice of the death penalty in principle would be to attack the justice of any and all punishment, but that is clearly absurd.

We must remember that it was God Himself who first decreed the death sentence for murder, even long before He gave the Ten Commandments to Moses; and He did so as a matter of justice: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God” (Gen 9:6).

As he was hanging on the cross, the Good Thief (St. Dismas) upon his conversion acknowledged the justice of his punishment when he told the Bad Thief: “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).

Of course there are 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 probably not the kind of ‘injustice’ Francis is interested in condemning here.

Does the Death Penalty Fuel a Socially Toxic Spirit of Revenge?

As regards claim (2), that capital punishment fuels a spirit of revenge which (3) is toxic for society: Here we must first consider that the word ‘revenge’ is ambiguous.

If we look up the definition of ‘revenge’ in an old manual of moral theology, we find it is actually listed among the virtues and is defined as follows: “Revenge consists in inflicting punishment on a private person for the evil which he has voluntarily committed, in order to make reparation for the injury committed and obtain satisfaction for the injured party.” Thus writes the Dominican Fr. Dominic Prümmer (1866-1931), a first-rate moral theologian, in his Handbook of Moral Theology (n. 469; italics removed).

Prummer explains further:

Since man of his nature is only too ready to take revenge for injuries received, some virtue is necessary to prevent excess in this matter. Punishment inflicted by a superior for the good of society is an act of legal justice, not of revenge. If any private individual takes due vengeance in order to correct his brother who has sinned, this is an act of charity; if he does it in order to make reparation for the violated honour of God, it is an act of religion.–In practice it is often advisable for a private individual to refrain from seeking or taking revenge because under the pretext of obtaining justice there may lurk excessive love of self or even hatred of the neighbour.

VICES CONTRARY to revenge are I. by excess, cruelty or savagery; II. by defect, excessive laxity in punishment.

(Rev. Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology [Cork: The Mercier Press, Limited, 1956], n. 469; italics given; underlining added. This book has recently been republished by Benedictus Books [#CommissionLink].)

Thus the term ‘revenge’ can be understood in a positive way, as a virtue. We will call this the ‘good’ sense of revenge.

In our day, however, it is common to understand ‘revenge’ only in a ‘bad’ sense, in what Fr. Prümmer would call excessive revenge, cruelty, or savagery.

Does the death penalty, then, fuel a spirit of revenge in the ‘bad’ sense? If it does, then thatt is something merely accidental to it; that is, a spirit of excessive vengefulness is not inherently connected with capital punishment.

Clearly, any other kind of punishment can also be accompanied by an accidental desire for, or feeling of, excessive revenge on the part of victims or other individuals who have knowledge of the case. If anything, then, it is punishment in general that can fuel a desire for ‘bad’ revenge, not just capital punishment in particular. But if Bergoglio’s argument is valid, then it would mean we should stop punishing criminals altogether, lest we unwittingly fuel a spirit of revenge. In truth, the fault of such a spirit being fueled accidentally would lie with each individual sinner — it can be attributed to people’s concupiscence, their tendency to evil; it is not the fault of (capital) punishment itself.

Considering that capital punishment is a matter of legal justice for the good of society, as we have seen, any incidental tempting of people to harbor a vengeful spirit has to be tolerated for the sake of the greater good that is accomplished by meting out a just and appropriate punishment for a horrific crime. In Catholic moral theology, that is permitted under what’s called the ‘principle of double effect’, to wit:

It is lawful to perform an act in spite of a foreseen evil effect, provided that:

1. the act is good in itself or at least indifferent;
2. its immediate effect is good;
3. the intention of the agent is good;
4. the agent has a proportionately grave reason for acting.

(Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, n. 23; italics removed.)

Thus we see that traditional Catholic moral theology handily refutes the sophistry of ‘Pope’ Francis lock, stock, and barrel.

By the way: If Bergoglio is worried about an unjust and vengeful spirit in society, he should not only be concerned about excessive punishment but also about penalties that are too lax. Giving capital offenders a sentence that is not proportionate to the crime they have committed is simply unjust, and a continually violated sense of justice is not conducive to a well-ordered society either.

What about the Inviolable Right to Life?

His Unholiness continues:

States should focus on allowing prisoners the opportunity to truly change their lives, rather than investing money and resources in their execution, as if they were human beings no longer worthy of living and to be disposed of.

Thus speaks a Naturalist, not a Catholic.

It must be said quite frankly that the state and society do not owe the capital offender the longest possible time on earth to turn his life around. Seemingly endless time for conversion and change can actually 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 sudden and unprepared 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)

In any case, we all know that when Bergoglio calls for criminals’ “opportunity to truly change their lives”, he does not even mean their conversion to the true Faith but only has in mind their conversion to a peaceful and legally blameless temporal life. That is clear from other statements he’s made on the topic in which he talks about the ‘hope’ of temporal rehabilitation. Thus it is not surprising that he should not only oppose capital punishment but even life imprisonment, which he falsely denounces as a “hidden death sentence”.

So the false pope complains that the death penalty treats capital criminals “as if they were human beings no longer worthy of living and to be disposed of”. But the truth is that it is precisely by his capital crime that the offender has rendered himself no longer worthy of living and has himself disposed of his right to life. That is what real Popes teach:

Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, 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.

(Pope Pius XII, Address De Premier on the Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment [Sep. 14, 1952], n. 33; italics given.)

The insufferable tripe spouted by Bergoglio has thus long been refuted by the Roman Catholic magisterium.

But, alas, the Argentinian antipope has more to say:

In his novel The Idiot, Fyodor Dostoevsky succinctly encapsulates the logical and moral unsustainability of the death penalty, speaking of a man condemned to death: “It is a violation of the human soul, nothing more! It is written: ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and yet, because he has killed, others kill him. No, it is something that should not exist.” Indeed, the Jubilee should commit all believers to collectively call for the abolition of the death penalty, a practice that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person!” (n. 2267).

It is telling, but not all that surprising, that Francis should give greater moral weight to the words of Fyodor Dostoyevsky than to God’s own Revelation and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.

What the Russian novelist thought was a glaring contradiction is actually nothing of the kind. As already noted, when God instituted the death sentence in Genesis 9:6, He did so precisely as the appropriate penalty for murder. The words of the Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13), are a prohibition of murder, not of all killing.

If Dostoevsky were right and the divine commandment “Thou shalt not kill” were to be taken literally and without any further stipulation or explanation, then even the taking of a violent aggressor’s life in self-defense would be sinful, and even the killing of animals would then violate this prohibition against killing. Thus, anyone who’s ever swatted a fly or stepped on an ant would be guilty of having broken the Fifth Commandment.

Such is the danger when one interprets Holy Scripture using one’s own lights and ideas instead of the authoritative guidance of Holy Mother Church. As the 16th-century Catechism of the Council of Trent 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. 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)

More recently, Pope Pius XII taught that “except in cases of private self-defense, just war waged by just methods, and the death penalty inflicted by the public authority for well-determined and proven very serious crimes, human life is inviolable” (Address L’Inscrutabile Consiglio Divino, Feb. 23, 1944; translation by DeepL).

That the Fifth Commandment does not forbid all killing is clear even from the very context of Exodus, for in the law code given immediately following the Decalogue, God commands: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live. Whosoever copulateth with a beast shall be put to death. He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save only to the Lord” (Ex 22:18-20).

What about the Dignity of Man and God’s Infinite Mercy?

Francis’ reference to n. 2267 of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church is cleverly misleading, considering that the precise words he is quoting — that the death penalty is “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” — were put there only by himself. In other words, Francis is actually appealing only to himself to justify his novel teaching, but to appear less self-referential and logically fallacious, he hides under the guise of ‘quoting the Catechism’.

That capital punishment does not ‘contradict the dignity of the person’ is proved by the fact that it is precisely to uphold that dignity that God first commanded the execution of murderers: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God” (Gen 9:6). Aside from that, let’s remember that the ultimate moral standard is not the ‘dignity of man’ but the law of God.

That Francis cannot quote 1900 years of Church teaching on this issue but is instead forced to enlist the help of a non-Catholic Russian novelist and his own pseudo-magisterium, says all we need to know.

Lastly, Bergoglio turns to the topic of the infinite mercy of God and pretends that God only forgives, He never punishes or makes any kind of demands:

As the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy taught us, we must never think that there could be a sin, a mistake, or an action of ours that distances us permanently from the Lord. His heart has already been crucified for us. And God can only forgive us.

This is one of those half-truths the apostate from Buenos Aires loves so much. Yes, it is true that there is no sin that God could not or would not forgive, given the sincere repentance of the sinner. But it is obviously false and heretical to claim that “God can only forgive us”. No, He can also withhold forgiveness, keep the gates of heaven closed for us, and deliver us up to everlasting punishment in hell, declaring: “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity” (Mt 7:23).

Those are terrible words, and we must pray that we will never hear them! We must continually turn from sin and never cease to beg God for the grace of final perseverance. The point here is simply to make clear that eternal damnation is a very real possibility for anyone in the wayfaring state who is capable of committing mortal sin. It is foolish and certainly not merciful to pretend, as Francis does, that there is only love and forgiveness to be obtained from God.

Yes, the divine mercy is infinite, but that mercy is not applied across the board to all people simply because “His heart has already been crucified for us”. The Redemption Christ accomplished must still be applied to individual souls, and that cannot happen without genuine supernatural repentance, as the Apostles made clear to the first converts on the day of Pentecost: “Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

“But is it not true that Jesus welcomed into His embrace a thief condemned to death?”, Francis asks rhetorically and somewhat disingenuously. Yes, it is true, Our Lord welcomed a thief condemned to death — but only one, namely, the one that repented and is known therefore as the ‘Good Thief’. The other one, who did not repent and is therefore known as the ‘Bad Thief’, Our Lord did not welcome into His embrace.

It is a grave distortion of the Gospel only to mention the merciful side of Our Lord and never to mention that “other side of Christ”, as Fr. Robert D. Smith (1928-2001) called it. Pope St. Pius X warned of this very thing back in 1910 in connection with the Sillonist social movement in France:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness.

But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them.

(Pope Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining added.)

Francis ends his ‘papal’ foreword with a heresy that has disastrous consequences for souls. He claims that…

even the most heinous of our sins does not mar our identity in God’s eyes: we remain His children, loved by Him, cared for by Him, and considered precious by Him.

It is false and heretical to say that we remain God’s children even when we have sinned mortally!

No, with the loss of sanctifying grace through mortal sin we also lose our adopted divine sonship, even though the indelible character imprinted on our souls at baptism remains, of course. That is because it is not the indelible mark that makes us children of God but the state of sanctifying grace.

According to traditional Catholic doctrine, the sacrament of baptism has three distinct effects: “(1) the grace of justification…; (2) forgiveness of all the penalties of sin; and (3) the sacramental character” (Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 8, 4th ed., p. 228 [#CommissionsLink]). Adoptive sonship by God is an effect of the justification obtained in baptism, it is not an effect of the sacramental character: “Besides forgiving sin and producing sanctifying grace, with all its formal effects — justice, supernatural beauty, the friendship of God, and His adoptive sonship — Baptism also effects the supernatural concomitants of sanctifying grace…” (p. 229). The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 confirms this as well: “Another effect of baptism is the infusion of sanctifying grace and supernatural gifts and virtues. It is this sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory” (s.v. “Baptism”).

Since, then, being a child of God is an effect of justification, and since justification can be lost, as the Council of Trent clearly teaches dogmatically (see Denz. 833, 837), it follows that we can cease being children of God. We do this by falling into mortal sin after baptism. Of course such a fall into mortal sin can be repaired by finding forgiveness and rejustification in the sacrament of penance, which restores us to grace; or, in the event the sacrament cannot be had, by perfect contrition with a sincere desire to go to confession. However, the fact remains that we cease being children of God when we lose sanctifying grace.

Thus we see how seriously Bergoglio misleads people spiritually in his foreword to Un Cristiano nel Braccio della Morte, and how very much at odds his doctrine is with the timeless Catholic truth.

Concluding Remarks

In 2022, Vatican News published an article by the author of the book which we do not wish to leave entirely uncommented:

• “‘Have no part in the execution of an innocent man!’ Exodus 23:7” by Dale Recinella

In it the writer tells of his experience giving a lecture in Louisville, Kentucky, “to address multiple workshops on the U.S. death penalty in light of Scripture. The first portion of my two-hour presentation, attended by about 200 Evangelical seminarians, addresses the erroneous use of Genesis 9, the Mosaic Law, and Romans 13 to claim biblical support for our U.S. capital punishment.”

He relates an exchange he had with “a well-dressed young man from the last row” who pointed out to him, quite correctly, that Our Blessed Lord showed His approval of capital punishment in principle when He told Pontius Pilate that he — Pilate — would not have power to have Him executed unless it were given him from above (see Jn 19:10-11).

Recinella counters by pointing out that Our Lord said to Pilate immediately afterwards: “Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin” (v. 11); and he adds: “Pilate’s role may be the lesser sin, but it’s still sin. And Jesus does not approve of sin”. His interlocutor falls silent, and Recinella thinks he has powerfully refuted him.

He has not.

The reason for there being a greater and a lesser sin in connection with the execution of Jesus Christ is that the Son of God was innocent. What our Lord said regarding greater and lesser sin did not concern the fittingness of the death sentence as a just means of punishment for capital crimes but the wrongful guilty verdict He knew He was about to receive. An innocent Man, indeed God Himself, was about to be put to death — that was the sin in which the Jews had the greater and Pilate the lesser share!

The words and the context in which they were spoken make this clear, but it is also confirmed, for example, by the great Church Father St. Augustine, who explains:

…he is a greater sinner who maliciously delivers up to the power the innocent to be slain, than the power itself, if it slay him through fear of another power that is greater still. Of such a sort, indeed, was the power which God had given to Pilate, that he should also be under the power of Cæsar. Wherefore “you would have”, He says, “no power against me,” that is, even the little measure you really have, “except” this very measure, whatever its amount, “were given you from above.” But knowing as I do its amount, for it is not so great as to render you altogether independent, “therefore he that delivered me unto you has the greater sin.” He, indeed, delivered me to your power at the bidding of envy, while you are to exercise your power upon me through the impulse of fear. And yet not even through the impulse of fear ought one man to slay another, especially the innocent; nevertheless to do so by an officious zeal is a much greater evil than under the constraint of fear. And therefore the truth-speaking Teacher says not, “He that delivered me to you,” he only has sin, as if the other had none; but He says, “has the greater sin,” letting him understand that he himself was not exempt from blame. For that of the latter is not reduced to nothing because the other is greater.

(St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 116 [John 19:1-16], n. 5; italics given.)

Thus, we see that Recinella is simply wrong in his interpretation of John 19:10-11.

Whenever a Catholic looks at a biblical text and wishes to understand its true meaning, or at least wishes to ascertain what meaning is in harmony with the Catholic Faith, he should consult ecclesiastically approved pre-Vatican II Scripture commentaries for safe guidance. Among them we can name St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea (13th century), Fr. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary collection (17th century), Fr. George Haydock’s footnote commentary in the Haydock Bible (1859), and Fr. Bernard Orchard’s Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953). By contrast, the popular post-Vatican II so-called Jerome Biblical Commentary in its various editions (1968, 1990, 2022) is dangerously Modernist and definitely to be avoided.

All of the foregoing is by no means meant to cast a bad light on genuine Catholic prison ministry. There is no question that this work of mercy is of the greatest importance. Prisoners, too, have souls redeemed by Christ, and they too need the Gospel. Many inmates have long repudiated their former lives of crime, but the environment in which they are confined is often filled with vice and temptation of all kinds. Any charity shown to them will be counted by Christ as charity shown to Himself: “I was in prison, and you came to me” (Mt 25:36).

We are called by God to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That is not optional, though it must certainly be subordinated to the love of God; that is, we can never offend God on the pretext of loving our neighbor: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mt 22:37-39).

The greatest act of love one can show to a prisoner on death row is to help him convert to the true Faith, repent of His sins, make restitution for his crimes as far as he is able, and, by spiritually uniting his sufferings to those of Christ, make supernatural use of his just punishment in expiation of his sins. Thus nothing is lost for him because that for which he was created — eternal blessedness with God — he can still obtain. That is what the true supernatural virtue of hope is all about. It has nothing to do with getting off death row or out of prison early and being given another chance in this temporal life.

Even in the case of a man wrongfully convicted or unjustly sentenced to death, the true Faith can allow him to convert this terrible injustice into a powerful supernatural means of obtaining grace for himself and the entire world. No suffering in this present life, no matter how intense or how long, is ever wasted if, with God’s help, it is spiritually united to the Cross of Christ! That is why St. Paul “now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church” (Col 1:24).

Any other use of pain and suffering, at the end of the day, is truly a waste. By possessing the faith, hope, and charity only the Catholic religion can give, even the most unjustly treated soul will ultimately merit an eternity of happiness: “For the Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne, shall rule them, and shall lead them to the fountains of the waters of life, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes” (Apoc 7:17).

Thus there is no greater charity we can exercise towards our neighbor than to help him convert to the true Roman Catholic religion. That is an example of the supernatural love every Catholic is ultimately called to have in relation to his neighbor.

But you’d never know it from listening to ‘Pope’ Francis.

Image source: composite with elements from Wikimedia Commons (Lula Oficial; cropped) and Amazon.it (cropped)
Licenses: CC BY-SA 2.0 and fair use