Sends video message to conference…
Leo XIV Repeats Bergoglian Talking Points Against the Death Penalty
The Augustinian Robert Prevost, who has been masquerading as Pope of the Catholic Church since last May under the stage name ‘Leo XIV’, has sent a video message to participants in a Chicago conference commemorating the 15th anniversary of the abolition of capital punishment in Illinois, his home state.
Vatican Media released the 2-minute video along with a brief article:
- Pope: Human dignity is not lost even after serious crimes are committed (Vatican News)
- VIDEO: Pope: Human dignity is not lost even after serious crimes are committed (YouTube)
In his message, ‘Pope’ Leo XIV offers three main arguments against the moral legitimacy of the death sentence.
First, he asserts: “The Catholic Church has consistently taught that each human life, from the moment of conception until natural death, is sacred and deserves to be protected.” (Note that the phrase “until natural death” is used to exclude not only true moral evils such as abortion and euthanasia but also pseudo-evils such as the death penalty.)
While these words of Leo may sound acceptable on the surface, they are simply not correct. What Prevost states is untrue not only with regard to the Catholic Church; it is false also regarding the counterfeit church of Vatican II, for even in the latter, the death penalty was never ruled out categorically until ‘Pope’ Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) came along in 2013. That is the reason why Bergoglio had to change the Novus Ordo Catechism on the matter:
What Prevost is preaching is not Roman Catholic teaching; rather, it is the counterfeit doctrine of Bergoglio, which is rooted in Vatican II and the subsequent declarations of the counterfeit magisterium.
Leo XIV also claims that “the dignity of the person is not lost even after very serious crimes are committed.” Notice the sly use of passive voice here to mask the uncomfortable reality: He speaks of serious crimes that “are committed”. This avoids the unpleasant issue of who has committed them, namely the very person whose supposedly “infinite” dignity is never lost. Putting it this way is clever because it gets around the embarrassment of swooning openly about the immense dignity of someone who tortures a newborn to death (to use a particularly nauseating example).
The present writer suspects that most people who oppose the death penalty in principle will be cured of their error once they watch some pertinent documentaries that showcase just what heinous crimes some people are capable of committing.
When it comes to capital punishment, all the talk about human dignity is beside the point. What matters not is whether someone guilty of very grave crimes has dignity but whether it is lawful for the state to execute him. And that isn’t determined by how much dignity he has; it is determined by correspondence with the law of God.
God Himself issued the first death sentence, as the natural punishment for original sin committed by Adam and Eve, and inherited by all their descendants. God had warned Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, otherwise “thou shalt die the death” (Gen 2:17). But they disobeyed, and so God told Adam: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return” (Gen 3:19). Furthermore, we read in Holy Scripture that “…this sentence is from the Lord upon all flesh” (Ecclus [Sir] 41:5) and that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23a).
With regard to human dignity, we note that God revealed to Noah that it is precisely because the murder victim has human dignity that the death sentence is to be imposed on the murderer: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God” (Gen 9:6).
Lastly, we should point out that if commission of even the gravest crimes do not rob a man of his dignity, then neither does administering a death sentence to him.
The final argument Leo XIV offers is that “effective systems of detention can be, and have been, developed to protect citizens while at the same time do not [sic] completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption.”
This point rests on the false assumption that the only purpose of the death penalty is the protection of society from the offender. While that is certainly one of its goals, it is not the only one. In fact, the primary end of the death penalty would seem to be retribution, that is, the administering of just punishment in proportion to the crime.
That the state has this power 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).
On Sep. 14, 1952, Pope Pius XII gave a speech in which he taught:
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 argument that administering a death sentence takes away the criminal’s opportunity for change and amendment is not very strong either. 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 carried out.
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 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.
In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas has addressed this very question in one of his main works:
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)
Leo speaks of the “possibility of redemption” for the criminal. 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, as already mentioned: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27).
Interestingly enough, in his video message the Augustinian Leo XIV does not quote St. Augustine. Although at other times Prevost makes it a point to quote this Doctor of the Church frequently, when it comes to the moral issue of the death penalty, he has no interest in doing so. We need but look at what St. Augustine wrote on the topic to see why:
Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder.
However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill [Exodus 20:13]. Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience to God, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably enough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in compliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle. Samson, too, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is justified only on this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by him had given him secret instructions to do this. With the exception, then, of these two classes of cases, which are justified either by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder.
(Saint Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, Book I, Chapter 21; underlining added.)
Oops!
In this video message by Leo XIV, we see once again that he does not deviate from the doctrine of his predecessor.
What remains to be seen is whether Leo, like Francis, opposes not only the death penalty but also lifelong imprisonment.
Image source: YouTube (screenshot)
License: fair use
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation