Pope Francis Toys With Heresy In His Hostility Towards Capital Punishment

Pope Francis has made known his animosity towards capital punishment, going so far as to condemn it outright.  Of course in doing so, he has directly contradicted centuries of Church teaching.  These teachings include proclamations by various popes and the Council of Trent.  Also read here, here, here, here, and a smattering of my previous posts dealing with this as the Maryland Catholic Conference repeatedly blundered on this topic.

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope St. John Paul II betrayed his personal distaste for capital punishment, but he respected Sacred Tradition enough to acknowledge that it trumped his personal proclivities.  In other words, he understood that as the Successor of Peter, his role was to safeguard and promulgate the Deposit of Faith in its entirety.

Today we heard from several sources that Pope Francis thinks the catechism should be updated to reject the death penalty.  See here and here.

Ponder these considerations:

• The pope is the guardian of Church teaching, not its judge.  He cannot alter it to his personal liking.
• The Teaching of the Church is immutable for it stems from God's word, which is as immutable as He is.  To pretend that God's word can change is to insinuate that God is subject to change.  That is impossible.  Such notions strike at the very nature of God Himself - a supreme blasphemy.
• "Heresy" is defined as by St Thomas Aquinas as being "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".  The morality of capital punishment has been promulgated by the Church for hundreds of years.  It will not change.  The attempt to change it is inherently heretical. 

If God's teaching can be held to be subject to change in this matter of capital punishment, then all topics of doctrine and morality can be seen as subject to change.  I believe this is the main goal of this latest papal move.  This proposed change to declare capital punishment to be anathema is a trial balloon.  If this "balloon" appears to be flying free, we'll see the heresies ensconced in Amoralis Lamentia being promulgated without nuance or apology within our Churches.

Thus far Pope Francis has opposed capital punishment as a matter of public opinion.  For canon lawyers and moral theologians out there, if the pope does attempt to alter the catechism, will that constitute an act of material and formal heresy that might render his papacy invalid?  I don't know, but it seems to me to be a reasonable question.

More Progressive Hacks Trying To Dilute The Meaning Of Being Pro-Life

First, let's deal with Mark Shea (the patheos blogger) and the issue of gun control.  From what I understand, he seems to think that all pro-life people must support gun locks, "smart technology", etc to claim the moniker "pro-life".  This article from American Catholic links to Shea's patheos article about it.   Because the patheos bloggers are paid based on the number of hits their blogs get, I refuse to post to the patheos article directly.  I will, however, link to his Facebook posting.

Here he posts a Catholic News Service article that makes the ridiculous claim that the Catholic Church's position on individual gun ownership is that it should be banned.  The basis for that conclusion couldn't be too much more flimsy than it is.  The basis is a parenthetical remark in a footnote of the document entitled "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice".  Reminder - the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has no inherent teaching authority at canon law.  Certainly no one need take to heart some obscure little footnote in a document.

Now I'll quote from a less-obscure document - called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Obviously this does bear the weight of the teaching Magisterium.  I'll be quoting actual paragraphs as opposed to little footnotes: paragraphs 2263-2265 to be precise.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. 
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The right to self-defense by individuals is a necessary corollary to their inherent right to life.  For just as much as an individual has the right to obtain food, shelter, etc to maintain his/her life and that of his/her family's, he/she has the right and even solemn duty to protect him/herself and family from unjust aggression.  It stands to reason that this God-given right to self -defense also includes the right to have the means necessary to address threats as they present themselves in this 21st century.  Keeping paragraph 2265 in mind, please reread the American Catholic link and consider the predicament in which that young mother found herself.  Had she not had ready access to a gun, unencumbered by a "gun lock" or politically-correct clap-trap, she and her baby might well have been murder victims.

Now I may be just speculating, but I think I understand (in part) the motives of the USCCB for jumping on the progressive gun-control bandwagon.  Many programs of the USCCB, including CRS, are heavily funded by various governmental agencies.  They want to keep those funds flowing.  As far as Shea goes, who knows?  Knowing, however, that he (and other patheos bloggers) get paid based on their numbers of hits, I will not link directly to him.

But enough of gun control.  According to Bishop John Wester of the Diocese of Salt Lake (UT), no one can be called "pro-life" who opposes Medicaid expansion.  Of course, who would be funding this Medicaid expansion?  Find the nearest mirror and stare into it; there's your answer.

No one who calls themselves Catholic will deny their responsibility to come to the assistance of the needy.  The question is how best to do it; on that good people can disagree.  That is a matter of prudential judgment.  In other words, one can call themselves "pro-life" if they don't agree with the USCCB-like clamoring for more governmental encroachment.  Regarding abortion and other intrinsic evils such as contraception, no one can make allowances for them.  Certainly no one can be pro-life who accepts the usage of contraceptives and the such.

I and others must continue to call on the carpet those who attempt to use the term "pro-life" to sell their progressive positions.

USCCB Misquotes Catechism To Buttress Their Socialist Propaganda

Today Sister Mary Ann Walsh penned an article on the USCCB blog entitled "Time to Listen to the Bishops on the Shutdown".  A study of this piece makes clear that the title should be "Time for the Bishops to Abolish the USCCB".

The theme of this less-than-masterpiece is a simple regurgitation of the USCCB swan song heard throughout the fight over the passing and implementation of Obamacare.  In a nutshell, the progressives controlling the various puppet strings at the USCCB support the idea of socialized medicine.  Notice that they aren't even advocating that abortion and contraception be expunged from Obamacare.  They simply don't want to be put in the position of paying for it.  In other words, as long as they (believe that they) won't sully their hands with abortion, they've no problem whatsoever with these moral evils becoming even more ensconced within our medical system because of Obamacare.

Now notice in the fifth paragraph, the one that starts with "The bishops noted that the Catechism..".  They claim to cite the Catechism as the source of their belief that the state must supply health care.  I'll post the full paragraph below:
The bishops noted that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says it is the proper role of government to "make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life," including food, clothing, heath care, education and culture.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is a misquote of paragraph 2288; here is the link to the Catechism, and you'll need to scroll to the paragraph.  I'll post it below.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

Are you noticing any differences??  There are two big differences.  Notice that the USCCB claims that government is the agent of provision.  The Catechism uses the word society.  They are not synonyms.  Let's look at the Catechism again, this time paragraph 1880, where "society" is plainly defined as "a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them".   Thus, the Catholic Church is a "society" as much as any civil body.  At this point, I'd also suggest a close study of paragraphs 1883-1885; they go into detail about the Principle of Subsidiarity and the danger of collectivism.

Bearing those last two points in mind, let's look at the second difference.  The USCCB uses the phrase "make accessible" while the Catechism uses the phrase "help in the attainment".   How can the government "make accessible" that which it doesn't possess?  Why, it has to seize it, doesn't it?  From whom?  Remember the phrase "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"?  That's straight from Karl Marx.  On the other hand, help in the attainment is innocuous: it could mean job skills training or truly charitable outreaches - means that don't entail confiscation from those who honestly attain goods vis-a-vis onerous taxes/fines such as the ones that Obamacare is already starting to impose.

I would propose that the USCCB is not worthy of the audience of anyone.

Dr Jeff Mirus And His Immigration Quagmire - A Response

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture wrote a piece a few days ago entitled "Illegals Are not Immorals".  He elicited a large amount of criticism, much of it deserved.  In the wake of the criticism, he released this piece today entitled "More on Immigration: A Contemporary Case of Corban".  It seems that he still espouses two troubling positions.

He seems to think that national boundaries are mere conventions.  That simply isn't correct.  Just from a Biblical view, we read from Acts 17:26 (Paul preaching to the Athenians) "from one man He made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth, and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."

I too will quote Section 2241 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with some emphasis:  "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

If national boundaries are a mere convention, the "welcome" is rather superfluous, is it not?  No one needs to welcome me to walk on the public sidewalk for I do not require a "welcome" to be on property in which I have just as much ownership/stake as anyone else.  I'd like us to recall the situation last weekend in Kansas, when an "immigrant advocacy" bunch called Sunflower Community Action imperiously paraded onto the property of Jeff Kobach.  In reflecting upon this, it is no stretch to see how those folks could trespass upon a family's private property if they hold that such boundaries are mere "conventions".  Do we see the moral hornet's nest that arises when we start allowing sloppy thinking about boundaries?

But let me touch upon Mirus' second mistake which I think to be more troubling.  It is most evident in the first paragraph of the first article.  I quote: "Many Americans, especially conservative Americans, tend to be selective legalists. Despite their recognition of the falsity of some anti-life laws, they hold that the law confirms a sort of territorial moral exclusivity on citizens. This is one of many values which can arise from being culture bound. It typically creates a huge blind spot on immigration."  I don't know in what kind of circles Mr. Mirus travels, but I've never encountered that among my friends.  I will say this, though.  I for one am tired of being judged as being "hateful" or "xenophobic" or "having a blind spot" every time we suggest that our southern borders be secured; I know people in Texas who have suffered at the hands of the Mexican drug gangs who cross the borders with impunity, endangering their families.

When folks utter lines such as "we don't owe illegals anything", I suspect that they're speaking of benefits and social services that law-abiding citizens support with their hard-earned tax dollars while struggling to support their own families.  The statement might be artless and poorly worded, but it's uttered by people who frankly are being shafted by progressives and then being berated when they dare to raise protest.  They're frustrated and burdened, Dr. Mirus!  Will you please cut them a little bit of the slack that you demand that they cut to those who break our laws and add to their - our - burden?  At the very least, to accuse good people of "loving their own comfort and dominance" and "believing in Manifest Destiny (whatever the hell that is)" is unacceptable.  If you must spout condescension like that, please know that we will take exception.  Thank you.

World Youth Day and YouCat

World Youth Day starts tomorrow in Madrid and runs till August 21st.  Organizers of the event plan to pass out a "youth-oriented" catechism called YouCat.  My friend at Les Femmes put up an excellent piece today critiquing YouCat.  I needn't "reinvent the wheel".  Please pop over to Les Femmes to read her piece.

Another colleague of ours in the Catholic Media Coalition mentioned that the problems enumerated by the Kolbe Foundation have been corrected; he didn't have details, however.  Assuming that all problematic elements have been expunged from YouCat, questions abound.  To wit:

1. How did the problematic material make its way into YouCat in the first place?
2. At what stage were the problems identified?
3. What was the final motivation for correction of the problems?

Finally, I believe that what Les Femmes wrote in her last two sentences needs to be pondered carefully.  The name "YouCat", a pitifully obvious knock-off of YouTube, points to dangerous attitudes towards young people.  The first attitude is "youth-worship".  There seems to be an unconscious desire to keep young people young.  How often do we hear that we need the young, for they are our future?  Well that may be true, but we also need the old to lend direction and wisdom to the energy of the young.  The impetus to celebrate the young while quietly ignoring the older actually stems from the Culture of Death - the same variety that has spawned the notion that perhaps the elderly should be set aside and even euthanized.  We better watch ourselves with that slippery slope.

The second dangerous attitude, mentioned by Les Femmes, is condescension.  While "keeping them young", we also keep them immature.  With "youcat" type of kiddie-talk (or, as they put it "language suitable for young people") instead of full use of adult language, we don't challenge them to grow up and act like adults.  Read a sample for yourselves; content aside, it reads like a child's fairy tale!  I know another feature in Madrid will be "Christian rock".  Many years ago, I was a musician, although not of the "rock" variety.  However, I was trained to manipulate music to produce mental/emotional effects in the audience.  I can tell you right now (although I'll be very unpopular) that "Christian rock" is an oxymoron.  Among other things, it excites emotions so that young people tend to be directed by emotions rather than by intellect.  Speaking of intellect, YouCat will probably not be what they need to grow properly in their faith.  The regular catechism should be encouraged.  Let's start treating them like adults, to encourage them to think of themselves as adults and to act accordingly.