by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
 |
| Death Penalty |
“Pope” Francis, arch-enemy of
Catholicism, declared this week that the death penalty is “inadmissible” and
that the “Catholic Church” will work towards its abolition
around the world. The Vatican formally announced this on Thursday,
August 2.
The “change” has been added to the
abominable “Catechism of the Catholic Church” of John Paul the Great and is now
considered “the official position of the Catholic Church”! The New-church
headed by heretic Bergoglio now teaches that “the death penalty is inadmissible
because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and
states that it will “work with determination towards its abolition worldwide.”
Conscious Novus Ordo Catholics —
some of them fanatical followers of Benedict XVI and John Paul the Great —
have, since the announcement, been expressing their anger at Francis for
“changing the teachings of the Church.”
However, ironically the
New-church's teaching on the death penalty has slowly evolved since the time of
John Paul the Great, who messed up the Church from 1978 to 2005. For instance,
in his Christmas message in 1998, John Paul II wished “the world the consensus
concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures ... to end the death
penalty.” In his scandalous document The Gospel of
Life, John Paul the Great fallaciously argues that the conditions that were
once considered okay for allowing the death penalty have basically
disappeared in these modern times. Again, in a homily on 27 January 1999, he
said:
“The new evangelization calls for
followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim,
celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is
the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken
away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has
the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the
chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I
made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death
penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
His successor, Benedict XVI, in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Africae Munus (19
November 2011; sec. 83), also called on society's leaders “to make every
effort to eliminate the death penalty”! Benedict XVI said:
“Together with the Synod members, I
draw the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every
effort to eliminate the death penalty and to reform the penal system
in a way that ensures respect for the prisoners’ human dignity. Pastoral
workers have the task of studying and recommending restorative justice as
a means and a process for promoting reconciliation, justice and peace, and the
return of victims and offenders to the community.
Days later, in his General Audience (30 November 2011),
he elaborated:
“I express my hope that your
deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being
promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death
penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming
penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance
of public order.”
Following them, Francis wrote in a
March 2015 letter to the president of the International Commission Against the
Death Penalty that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious
the condemned's crime may have been.” Carefully note his words — "however
serious the condemned's crime may have been." He added that
the death penalty “entails cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment” and said it
was to be rejected “due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice
system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error.”
Francis in a 2015 speech
to the US Congress said that human life must be defended “at
every stage of its development” — the same infidel who equally said in 2013
that opposing abortion isn't
more important than "helping the poor", accusing
Catholics doing so of being "obsessed with the issues of
abortion, homosexuality and birth-control"!
“This conviction has led me, from
the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global
abolition of the death penalty," Francis told top US elected lawmakers in
2015.
“I am convinced that this way is
the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an
inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of
those convicted of crimes.”
Francis, then, also noted gladly
that the (heretical) US Conference of Catholic Bishops had already advocated
for the abolition of the death penalty.
“Not only do I support them, but I
also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and
necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of
rehabilitation,” Francis said.
The unchanging teaching of the Church on Death Penalty
What is death penalty? Death penalty is the legal punishment of death for a crime. Catholic doctrine as it was taught until Vatican II does not support the above liberal position of Francis, Benedict XVI and John Paul II. On the contrary, it clearly states that the death penalty is legitimate. The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent says:
“The
power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because
theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the
innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thou shalt not
kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For
the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is
fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the
guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. In the Psalms we find a
vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in
the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps 101:8).
In the Old Testament the Mosaic Law
specifies no less than thirty-six capital offences calling for execution by
stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation. Included in the list are
idolatry, magic, blasphemy, violation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery,
bestiality, pederasty, and incest. The death penalty was considered especially
fitting as a punishment for murder since in his covenant with Noah God had laid
down the principle, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his
blood be shed, for God made man in His own image” (Genesis 9:6). In
many cases in the Old Testament God punished culprits with death, as happened
to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16). In other cases individuals such as
Daniel and Mordecai are God’s agents in bringing a just death upon guilty
persons.
By declaring in his scandalous
document cited above that the
conditions that were considered okay then for allowing the death penalty
have basically disappeared in our own times, John Paul II showed himself to be
a barefaced enemy of the Church. For John Paul II, then, idolatry, magic,
blasphemy, violation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, bestiality, pederasty,
and incest no longer exist in our own times! Little wonder then, John Paul II
himself — as well as Benedict XVI and Francis — is among
those God commands to be put to death, being a famous idolater himself. See
the photos below:
 |
John Paul II encouraging idol worshippers in Assisi in 1986, against God’s
commandment “...thou shalt not have strange gods before Me...” (Exodus
20:3) “...the gods of the heathens are devils...” “1 Cor. 10:20).
 |
| John Paul II kissing the abominable koran against the same commandment. |
 |
| Benedict XVI violating the same commandment by praying with the Muslims. |
 |
| Francis worshipping with the Buddhists against the same commandment. |
In the
New Testament, we see the right of the State to put criminals to death. Modern
heretics and “human right” advocates often portray Jesus as being totally
“opposed to violence”! Luke 9:55, where Jesus rebukes his disciples for wishing
to call down fire from heaven to punish the Samaritans for their lack of
hospitality, as well as Matthew 26: 52, where he admonishes Peter to put his
sword in the scabbard rather than resist arrest, are their favourite passages!
However,
at no point does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital
punishment. For instance, in his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with
approval a “harsh” commandment which reads: “He who speaks evil of
father or mother, let him surely die” (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10,
referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to
his authority to crucify Him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him
from above — that is to say, from God (John 19:11). Jesus commends the good
thief on the cross next to him, who admitted that he and his fellow thief were
receiving the due reward of their deeds (Luke 23:41).
The
early Christians had nothing against the death penalty. They approve of the
divine punishment meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they are rebuked by
Peter for their fraudulent action (Acts 5:1-11). In the Letter to the Hebrews
we read:
“...a
man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of
two or three witnesses” (10:28).
St. Paul
repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the
Romans, with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate
who holds authority “does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the
servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans
13:4).
Put simply,
no passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.
The
Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for
capital punishment. For instance, to answer the objection that the first
commandment forbids killing, St. Augustine, the Church's greatest theologian
after St. Paul, writes, in The City of God:
“The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being
establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law
or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.
“The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an
instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way
contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's
bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to
death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.” (The City of God, Book 1,
chapter 21).
Similarly,
in the medieval period leading canonists and theologians
asserted the right of civil courts to pronounce the death penalty for very
grave offences such as murder and treason. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus
invoke the authority of Scripture and patristic tradition, and give arguments
from reason. Aquinas, particularly, writes, in
his Summa Theologiae:
“It is written: "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live" (Ex.
22:18); and: "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the
land" (Ps. 100:8). …
“Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore
every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see
that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member,
because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both
praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is
related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be
dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy
and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since
"a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art.
2)
Again, he writes:
“The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected
from their errors does not prohibit 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 that critical point of death the opportunity to be
converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at
the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible
to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.” (Summa contra gentiles, Book
III, chapter 146).
Giving
magisterial authority to the death penalty, great Pope Innocent III required
disciples of the heretic Peter Waldo seeking reconciliation with the Church to
accept the proposition: “The secular power can, without mortal sin,
exercise judgement of blood, provided that it punishes with justice,
not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation.”
Hence,
the reason why the Holy See for centuries authorized the Inquisition to turn
over heretics to the secular arm for execution. (Recall
here that John Paul II, during his long reign, did apologize to the Jews,
Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, the Muslims killed by the
crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly “suffered at the hands of
the Catholic Church” over the years!)
In the
Papal States the death penalty was imposed for a variety of offences. The Roman
Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent,
taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil
authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of
murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment.
In
modern times Doctors of the Church such as Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus
Liguori maintain that certain criminals should be punished by death. Venerable
authorities such as Francisco de Vitoria, Thomas More, and Francisco Suárez
agreed. John Henry Newman, in a letter to a friend, maintained that the
magistrate had the right to bear the sword, and that the Church should sanction
its use, in the sense that Moses, Joshua, and Samuel used it against abominable
crimes.
Throughout
the first half of the twentieth century the consensus of Catholic theologians
in favour of capital punishment in extreme cases remained solid, as may be seen
from approved textbooks and encyclopaedia articles of the day. The Vatican City
State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for
anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope. Pope Pius XII, in an
important allocution to medical experts, declared that it was reserved to the
public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life in expiation of
their crimes.
Of course, there can be abuses of death penalty — the crucifixion of Christ among them — but such abuses result purely from man's error and have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the legal punishment.
Avery
Cardinal Dulles, S.J, in a typical characteristic of a diehard modernist, cites
all the above scriptural passages and Church teachings in his 2001
article "Catholicism and Capital Punishment" but
then cleverly concludes that “Current Catholic
teaching — that is, that of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and
now Francis — should be understood, as I have sought to
understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition”.
Let us
beware of these men! Many of them, in fact, don’t believe in God any more.
Vatican II popes — in particular anti-pope Francis, Benedict XVI and John Paul
II — oppose death penalty simply because they do not believe in God — I
mean the Catholic God — and what His Holy Bible teaches — not
really because they are/were ignorant of these teachings. That’s why
they all hang their condemnation of the death penalty on “the dignity
of man”! — wilfully ignoring the fact that
the moral dignity that consists in living in accordance with the
image and likeness of God can, put simply, be lost by serious crimes — just as
a baptised Catholic always retains the dignity of being a child of God but can
nevertheless forfeit that dignity and go to hell if he commits mortal sin and
dies unrepentant in such. They unanimously teach
the world that the Catholic tradition prior to them — that is, prior to John
Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis I — failed to recognize this “dignity of man”
and in fact contradicted it in practice by using (or defending the use of)
capital punishment. Francis' new teaching says:
“Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the
death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and
dignity of the person,” and she works with determination for its abolition
worldwide.”
This statement, as we know, is purely heretical.
Steve Skojec of OnePeterFive, who had been championing the idea that
Francis is not a manifest heretic, interestingly informs us about “a
trustworthy theologian” he consulted this time around on this very matter, a
moral theologian “who is well versed in the finer distinctions of Magisterial
authority and its limits”. According to him, the following was the response he
received from the said theologian:
The
traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the intrinsic morality of the
death penalty is irreformable dogma. To deny this or assert the contrary is
formally heretical. Catholics remain obliged to believe and accept this
doctrine regardless of any changes to the Catechism.
What
does it mean to say that this is “formally heretical”?
1. Formal versus material heresy. This is a
distinction pertaining to the objective status of
doctrinal propositions. A heresy is
any proposition opposed to any dogma. Two things are required for a doctrine to
be dogma: (1) it must be contained in divine revelation and (2) it must be
proposed as such by the Church (either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary
and universal magisterium). If both of these requirements are met, then the
doctrine is a formal dogma, and the denial of such a dogma is a formal heresy. If a doctrine is contained in
divine revelation but has not yet been proposed as such by the Church, then it
can be called a “material dogma”. Such was the case with the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception of Mary in the patristic and medieval periods. Material heresy is the denial of a material
dogma.
2. Formal versus material heretic. This
is a distinction pertaining to the subjective
culpability of persons. A heretic is
a person who believes or teaches heresy. A material
heretic is a person who believes or teaches something which is
objectively a heresy; a formal heretic is
one who continues to do so obstinately after having been duly corrected.
So in
the case of the dogma of the intrinsic morality of the death penalty, the
denial of this dogma is formally heretical... (See: Heresy in the Catechism. Wolf in the Vatican. No
Shepherds in Sight.)
Note
that this current teaching is also related to their denial of the existence of
hell. While Francis openly denies the existence of hell, John Paul II also does
that but in a subtle way — by teaching a
universal salvation of all mankind. See: Pius IX, Pius XII, Fr Feeney and the dogma “Outside the
Church there is no salvation”
For more
of their anti-Bible teachings and their promoting of the New World Order, see
also:
No comments:
Post a Comment