The Argentinan apostate calling himself "pope"of the Roman Catholic Church, Jorge Bergoglio, has once more demonstrated that he cannot possibly be the Vicar of Christ. On August 2, 2018, Bergoglio announced that he was changing the Vatican II sect´s stance on capital punishment, According to the Modernist Vatican´s Congregation for the [destruction of the] Doctrine of the Faith:
"Ending the life of a criminal as punishment for crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people"
Furthermore, "Pope" Francis is changing the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), to make it even more evil. Section Number 2267 is being revised as follows:
"The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime."
The implications of this act are staggering. It is merely "authentic development of doctrine" Is it "not a contradiction" with prior magisterial teachings (of the True Church, pre-Vatican II)? Are the reasons advanced against the death penalty sound? These are the questions to be explored on this post.
The Traditional Teaching of the One True Church on Capital Punishment
The New York Times states that "Abolishing the death penalty had long been on of his [Francis] top priorities, along with saving the environment and caring for immigrants and refugees." (See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world)europe/pope-deth-penalty.html). Saving unborn babies from being slaughtered by abortion didn´t make the list, which is apparent as His Wickedness didn´t say or do anything before Ireland´s successful vote to end its Constitutional recognition of the unborn´s right to life. His priorities are those of a left - wing politician, not the visible Head of Christ´s True Church (which he is not). Notice the complete lack of spiritual priorities from the list. Nothing about saving souls, reparation of sin, making converts, or even protect his sect of the rampant sodomites. However, his failings go much deeper than that. Let´s take a look at the teachings of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians, the popes, the practice of the Church and Sacred Scripture. For these sections only, the quotes from these sources will be in red font, so to make it stand out as clearly as the teaching itself.
1. The Theologians
According to theologian Prummer, "Only the state has the right to put to death those who have committed most serious crimes. The State has the right since the penalty of death is sometimes necessary for safeguarding the common weal (good) and only the state has the duty of safeguarding society. Capital Punishment must be reserved for the most serious crimes and these must be fully proven.. Since the State has the power to put the criminal to death, so it has the power for a sufficient reason to mutilate the criminal (ej., by cutting off his hand) or to flog him." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, pg. 126).
Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Killing human being is lawful in two caes. (a) It is lawful when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment) (See Moral Theology 2: 100) They also assert "Thought lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means." (See moral Theology, 2: 101).
Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas taught, "It is lawful to kill an evildoer insofar as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the communities welfare.. [to] lawfully put evildoers to death" (See ST II-II, 64, 3)
Doctor of the Church, St Alphonsus Liguori taught, "... if it is necessary for the defense of the republic.. [or] in order to preserve the order of law" the death penalty is licit" (See Theologia Moralis III, 4, 1)
Theologian Jone writes, "A criminal may be executed if juridical proof has established the moral certainty that he has committed a grave crime for which the State, in the interest of the common welfare, inflicts capital punishment, and if someone has been authorized by the State to execute the sentence." (See Moral Theology, pg.140).
Two principles can be adduced from these teachings: (a) Capital punishment is not wrong per se, and (b it is not necessary to use it if the common good of the State can be had by less severe means. There is no eminent theologian who holds the use of capital punishment to be inherently evil, inmoral, or impermissible under all circumstances.
2. The Popes and the Practice of the Church
Predisposition by Pope Innocent III as a condition to be readmitted to the Church: "We declare that the secular power can without mortal sin impose a judgement of blood provided the punishment is carried out not in hatred but only in good judgement, not inconsistently but after mature deliberation."
"From 1815, when the pope regained political control of Rome from Napoleon, until 18770, the popes ordered the executions of hundreds of malefactors" (See Norko, M., "The Death Penalty in Catholic Teaching and Medicine: intersections and Places for Dialogue," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36 (2008): 470-481. This covers five pontificates, to wit: Pope Pius VII (1800-1823), Pope Leo XII (1823-1829), Pope Pius VIII (1829-1830), Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).
In his encyclical Pastoralis Officii (1891), Pope Leo XIII taught, "Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of the public cause, to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense" (para. #2; Emphasis mine).
The Catechism of Saint Pius X, says in the discussion on the Fifth Commandment, "It is lawful to kill... when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment for a crime. "
In the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubi (1930), the pope teaches, "It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life, for here [i,e., abotion] it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty..." (para. #64; Emphasis mine).
When Pius Ix was asked to grant a stay of execution for those condemned in 1868, the pope firmly replied "I cannot, and i do not want to." The lateran Treaty of 1929, approved by Pope Pius Xi, there was a provision foe the execution of anyone attempting to assassinate the Pope within the Vatican. (See https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/hanging-concentrates.the.mind).
In the bull Exsurge Domine, excommunicating Martin Luther and condemning his heresies, CONDEMNED proposition # 33 states, "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." Since heresy is a worse crime than physical murder because it kills the life of the soul, the death penalty for heretics in Catholic countries is justified. ("And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." St. Matthew 10:28).
What Sacred Scripture teaches
1. The Old Testament
Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds man´s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." This simple verse both explains what the punishment for murder should be and why murder merits it.
Exodus 21:12: "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall be surely put to death"
Leviticus 24:17: "And if a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely put to death."
Numbers 35:31: "Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death."
2: The New Testament
Many erroneously think Jesus did away with capital punishment when He said, "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth´ But i tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, ad do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (St. Matthew 5:38-42)
Here, the context makes evident Christ was referring to revenge and dealing with enemies on a personal level, not punishment by civil authorities. Furthermore, He is being hyperbolic. He´s not commanding someone who is assaulted to allow himself to be hit again, nor is someone who is sued expected to forego representation and not fight against it in court. In St. Matthew 5:17 Jesus taught, "Do not think that i came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; i did not come to abolish, but to fulfill them"
Jesus tells Pilate in St. John 19:11, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above..." This authority to put Jesus to death would be odd if it didn´t entail the general power to execute criminals. Christ was a victim of the death penalty but did not condemn it. It was wrong in His case because the Jews who wanted Him crucified, and Pontius Pilate who aqcuiesced to it, knew He was innocent.
Finally, when He is dying by crucifixion, Jesus accepts the repentance of the Good Thief on the cross, who says to his evil companion, "Dost thou not even fear God, since thou art under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds..." (St. Luke 23:40-41). Had Jesus disagreed with this statement, responding to it the promise of eternal salvation certainly isn´t a way to show the Good Thief he was wrong- - "And Jesus said to him: Amen i say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise" (St. Luke 23:43) . Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of God the Father - the One Who required His own Son, Jesus Christ, to pay precisely that price in our stead.
The false reasoning and Heretical Teaching of "Pope Francis"
As demonstrated above from the teachings of the popes, theologians, the Bible, and the constant practice of the Church, capital punishment is not wrong in principle. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically inmoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil - - a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church
Bergoglio proffers two reasons that allege capital punishment is always wrong: (1) It "attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes" and (2) the State should be oriented to rehabilitation, and "given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people". He also seems to suggest that the "dignity of the person" is somehow enhanced by modern penal systems; his second reason.
1. The "Dignity of the Person" Argument
If the death penalty was intrinsically evil because of "human dignity," it was always wrong and could not "become wrong." People have not "developed more human dignity." Human
beings were, from the beginning, made in the image and likeness of God. It doesn´t become "more true" or "less true" with passage of time. Moreover, it flatly contradicts the teaching of the Bible that affirms humans are made in the image of God and supports the death penalty: Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds man´s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." (Emphasis mine).
Second, how does the (alleged) fact of the death penalty not being needed for the protection of innocent people "increase human dignity?" There is no evidence offered to show that under all circumstances everywhere in the world, capital punishment is not necessary to protect innocent people. As the theologians taught, the death penalty may be omitted. when less severe means can be used to the protection of society, but it is not a requirement to do so. There certainly seems to be an implication that "human dignity" makes capital punishment unlawfull under all circumstances, which is absurd.
Third, the specious argument assumes that all the popes, theologians and Doctors of the Church- - as well as the Church Herself - - was always wrong until now, and the Church can teach error. None of the, fully understood the "dignity of the human person" and none required capital punishment to be abandoned if less severe means could be used to protect the public welfare. This is a denial of the dogma of Indefectibility. It is rank heresy.
2. The Rehabilitation and Efficient Detention Systems Argument
Here´s a Vatican II conundrum: If the death penalty is always wrong because of the inherent "dignity of the person," how rehabilitation and efficient detention systems relevant? If it is wrong because of human dignity, it was always wrong regardless of the deficiency of rehabilitation and detention systems. The first argument, if true, would render the second argument superfluous.
It would also give another erroneous idea: that in times where you couldn´t protect the lives of innocent people, it was OK to execute criminals and violate their human dignity as bieng made in the image of God. (This is "Vatican II logic" so don´t be surprised at internal contradictions). If the argument is that "human dignity" has somehow been "enhanced" by modern rehabilitation and detention systems, it certainly doesn´t even begin to make sense because (a) humans have always been made in God´s image which gives them their dignity; that image isn´t rendered better because of extrinsic conditions and (b) the Church never required the death penalty to be abandoned if less severe means of protecting society could be obtained.
Rehabilitation and Detention - - Considered and Dismissed
The idea of rehabilitation has been, of course, considered and rejected as a reason for condemning capital punishment. The great saint, theologian, and Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas had this to say:
"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 hearth does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." (See Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146).
On balance, there is more danger in letting a murderer live trying to rehabilitate him. There is much damage the criminal can do. If imprisoned for live, he might contribute to the hardening in evil oof other wicked men; after all, don´t people want to keep juvenile offenders out of prison because it makes them worse when they get out? The killer might murder another inmate or a corrections officer. Nor is prison and attempted rehabilitation a guarantee he will not escape and kill again. Capital punishment is 100% effective in stopping further murdering from that individual.
What about innocent people who have been wrongfully executed? Bad consequences don´t cause something intrinsically good to become evil, and good consequences don´t cause something intrinsically evil to become good. No system of justice is perfect, and sometimes innocent people are executed. However, many times innocent people are sent to jail for decades and die there, only to be vindicated posthumously. Does that make putting people in jail intrinsically evil? Likewise, a woman who has an abortion because she doesn´t want to stop working will get good effect of more income, but that can never justify the intrinsically evil act of murdering of an innocent unborn baby.
Finally, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII makes it clear that punishment is not merely a defensive or protective reaction to an evil act committed (or could be committed again), but it is properly inflicted on the offender after the act, whether or not he may commit a crime again, precisely because he is in state of guilt either way. This teaching, rooted in the notion of guilt and taught by the Magisterium, is expressly rejected by Bergoglio.
Im his "Discourse to the Catholic Jurists of Italy" (December 5, 5, 1954), Pope Pius XII said, "We add that the criminal has brought about, by his act, a state which does not automatically cease when the act itself is completed. He remains the man who has consciously and deliberately violated a law which binds him (reatus culpae), and simultaneously he is involved in the penalty (reatus poenae). This personal condition endures, both in his relation to the authority on which he depends, or better, te human authority of public law in so far as this has a share in the corresponding penal process, and at all times also, in his relation to the supreme divine authority. Thus there is brought about an enduring state of guilt and punishment, which indicates a definite condition of the guilty party in the eyes of the authority offended, and of this authority with respect to the guilty party (St. Thomas: Sum Theol. III, q. 69, a. 2, obj. 3 et ad 3)."
"No rupture with the Past"
The self-serving statement by the modernist Vatican that Bergoglio´s change in doctrine "expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium" is -- to be charitable -- pure baloney. The very fact they try to explain it away is a sure indication that is contradiction. Just as Ratzinger tried to assure us in the year 2000 that "subsists" means the same as "is" in Lumen Gentium (1964), with its heretical ecclesiology, Bergoglio lies. (In the history of the Church, there was never a time wherein 36 years after an Ecumenical Council ended, they still had to "clarify" its meaning; another sure indication that the Vatican II sect is not the Roman Catholic Church).
We have just seen the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium on capital punishment since the stablishment of the One True Church by Her Divine Founder, Our Lord an Savior Jesus Christ. What Bergoglio teaches is a direct contradiction. How does he attempt to explain it as "an authentic development" that is "not on contradiction" with past teaching?
He claims penal sanctions were understood differently. No. The Church understood that humanity was created in the image of God. She understood human life was sacred. Nevertheless. the taking of human life by the State for a capital offense was considered moral in principle and not a violation of the sacredness of life or human dignity. The fact that modern day heathens cry tears over executed murderers, but support the murder of innocent little babies by abortion does nothing to change the basic facts and principles pronounced upon by the Chucrch since Her beginning. Pope Pius X, in his great encyclical Lamentabili Sane, condemnde the following error of the modernists: "Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to different times and places"
He claims that capital punishment developed in an enviroment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat the crime. As demonstrated above, recidivism is irrelevant to punishment justly incurred, as taught by the approved theologians and Pope Pius XII.
Conclusion
"Pope" Francis has directly contradicted a teaching guaranteed as true by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. His claim tha capital punishment is always wrong, despite of his protests to the contrary, is a contradiction to all prior Magisterial teaching, and a manifest denial of the Indefectibility of the Church. Jorge Bergoglio cannot be pope, as he is notorious heretic.
When will the "recognize and resisters" and the "conservative" Vatican II sect members wake up to the truth? Bergoglio has executed yet another truth, and leads millions on the road to hell. Surely, Christ had Bergoglio on mind when He said to "..fear him that can destroy both soul and body on hell" (St. Matthew 10:28)
