"Catholyc" Progressives, Abortion And Capital Punishment

In their July 14th edition, the Standard published a Catholic News Service article concerning the death penalty.  It appears on page 9.  It is not on the Standard's web page at this time; however, it is on the CNS site, to which I now link.

Pope John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae, made plain his personal opposition to capital punishment.  However, being the Pontiff, he understood that even he was subject to sacred Tradition and Scripture which do make plain that capital punishment is a licit function of civil governments.  The late Pontiff made very clear that the use of capital punishment should not occur when the criminal could be so detained as to render the rest of the populace safe from future harm.  Obviously, on a case-by-case basis, such judgment is in the purview of the proper civil authorities.  Now let me add further that in a society such as ours, that for over 30 years has callously facilitated the slaughter of millions of tiny babies in their mothers' wombs, I do not believe that civil authorites have any moral credibility whatsoever to administer capital punishment; abortion has clouded their thinking processes that much.  However, it is clear that the issue of capital punishment is one on which good Catholics can disagree.  Abortion is not - no one can be a true Catholic who supports abortion in the least.

Now let's get back to the article.  It presents a statistic, that since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, that 1,258 executions have occurred.  Well, as lamentable as this number may be, let's bear in mind that these individuals were at least recognized as individuals.  They were convicted of captial crimes by juries of their peers and often attempted multiple appeals.  Some might argue that the trials may not have been fair, but at least they received trials, a perfunctory acknowledgement of their personhoods.

Between 1976 and now, 35 years have elapsed.  That means that on average, about 36 people per year in the entire country died via capital punishment.  Now let's compare that to abortion data.

In Maryland alone, according to some statistics supplied by the Guttmacher Institute as quoted by the Post-owned Gazette in their recent editorial, 34000 babies were murdered via abortion in Maryland alone.  That is equivalent to 93 government-sanctioned murders of babies every day - in Maryland alone.

Since the article cites national numbers, let's compare that to national numbers for abortion.  Compare 36 capital punishment executions per year with - 1.5 million murdered babies per year.  That means for every convicted criminal executed, almost 42,000 babies were aborted.

So now we see this page-long article dedicated to the plight of these 1,258 people who underwent capital punishment.  Where, oh where, is the commensurate concern shown for the 52+ million babies slaughtered?  I address this question to those in the Church structures who allege that they work for "social justice".  Do the math!  Not only that, but consider that these babies receive no benefit of trial, no appeal process whatsoever.  Your priorities need badly to be adjusted!

Maryland "Pro-Life Victory" A Sham

The Maryland Catholic Conference is calling the recent repeal of the death penalty in Maryland a "pro-life victory".  Really???  Seriously???   What about the real death penalty in Maryland??

While the MCC and state legislators were celebrating and giving "high-fives" to each other, another 95 babies were slaughtered in abortuaries across the Free State.  Yes, approximately 95 babies are murdered vis-a-vis abortion in Maryland - with the support of many of the legislators who repealed capital punishment.

How many executions occurred in Maryland over the years?  According to Maryland's own statistics, 85 men were executed from 1923 to present.  Obviously that's less than 1 per year: 0.94 to be precise.  With 95 babies being murdered every year, that makes 34,700 per year.  Once again, the Maryland Catholic Conference displays an abysmal lack of perspective just in terms of arithmetic as they wax lyrical about a legislative body that largely condones the murder of innocents.

There's a larger issue here, one that eludes the folks at Maryland Catholic Conference.  Mary Ellen Russell, executive director of the MCC stated the case although she doesn't acknowledge the impact of what she said.  She said, "the test of whether the death penalty can be used is not the gravity of the offense, but whether it is absolutely necessary to protect society."  Right there she acknowledges that capital punishment is permissible if "it is absolutely necessary to protect society".  However, thanks to their short-sighted (and progressive leanings of the "social justice" cabal), they have just removed a means of societal defense that would otherwise be available to protect society from dangerous criminals.

There is a malevolent pattern in recent actions of the Maryland legislature.  It's seen in the repeal of capital punishment and it's also seen in the push to cripple our exercise of Second Amendment rights.  In both cases, the progressives are acting to tie our hands when it comes to defending ourselves, our families and our society against dangerous thugs.  In fact, the thugs who call themselves "doctors" while plying their murderous trades are no doubt joining in the celebration of the death penalty repeal.  Why?  Simple!  They no doubt realize that in a saner time, they would be considered eligible for capital punishment.

ADDENDUM:  Perhaps the MCC staffers are reading the Not-at-all Catholic Reporter.  Yesterday their columnist Bill Tammeus questioned why true Catholics spend so much energy trying to stop abortion as opposed to the death penalty.  Why?  According to this dubious sage, the unborn child is just "a bundle of cells" whereas the criminal is a human being.  What a guy!

The Death Penalty

As most readers know, the State of Maryland has just abolished the death penalty.  Oh no, I don't mean that Maryland has halted the murder of nearly 100 babies every day vis-a-vis abortion; I mean for the 1 convicted felon who was executed every 4-6 years (at most).  For that, the Maryland bishops lavished praise upon the CINO governor who has been known to use his bully-pulpit to raise funds for Maryland NARAL.

Initially I thought the abolition of the death penalty was a matter on which there could be legitimate disagreement amongst Catholics.  I no longer believe that.  Let me start by differentiating between two concepts that are often erroneously thought to be equivalent; they aren't.  They are:

1. Opposition to capital punishment
2. Abolition of the death penalty

One is a matter of personal belief, of prudential judgment.  The other is a matter of public policy.  One does not necessarily imply the other.  Let's now refer to Evangelium Vitae, section 56.  Please read the entire section.  I'll copy below a paragraph from that section.

"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Well, these cases are not non-existent.  They might well be rare, but from time to time they do exist; that's just reality.  In those rare cases, Church teaching provides for the imposition of capital punishment by legitimate civil authority.  Why?  Because as the encyclical clearly states, in those cases capital punishment is required to defend society.

 Acknowledging that God alone has supreme authority over life, the Church also acknowledges through Scripture and Tradition that God delegates the responsibility of capital punishment to legitimate civil authority.    Such delegation cannot be abdicated by state authorities, for in so doing, they stand in disobedience to the God who laid that charge upon them.   And once again, progressives within the Church hierarchy (and I mean you, Maryland Catholic Conference!) join the Maryland governor and other officials in their arrogance and disobedience as they thumb their noses at the Lord of Life and abdicate their duties and responsibilities to protect innocent life on one hand - and on the other hand, foster the murder of innocent children.

The Maryland bishops would do more for the culture of life if they demanded that the stonewalling of the Carhart investigations cease and that abortion be banned in Maryland.  Stop the murders of the 90+ babies everyday in Maryland before braying about false "triumphs".

My colleague at An Archdiocese of Washington DC Catholic links to a petition to put the matter to referendum.  I in turn will link to his piece.  I will sign the petition.  Knowing that this petition will never be allowed in Church, I urge interested readers to visit that site.

Pope's Erroneous Call For End To Death Penalty AND Life Imprisonment

As most Marylanders know, the State of Maryland last year abolished capital punishment of deadly criminals (the execution of innocent babies goes unabated, however).  I wrote two pieces that both excoriated the Maryland Catholic Conference and demonstrated why they actually violated Church teaching in their effort to abolish capital punishment.

In their efforts to abolish capital punishment, both on their website and during testimonies in Annapolis, the MCC stated that Maryland would be able to protect its citizens through the use of life imprisonment without parole in lieu of the death penalty.  I've saved screen shots of two of these and will post them after the jump break so as not to take up too much space in the main screen.

However, Pope Francis today made clear his opposition not only to the death penalty, but to life imprisonment.  He said "life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty".  So he just contradicted Archbishop Lori and the Maryland Catholic Conference.  He made the latter appear to be a bastion of conservative common sense - that's quite an accomplishment!

More seriously, though, he spoke in disregard to Evangelium Vitae and the hundreds of years of Church teaching.  He seems to impute motives of "violence and revenge" to governments who employ these means.  I've no doubt that some corrupt regimes do precisely that; however, to issue a blanket denouncement of life imprisonment - and the death penalty for that matter - is simply irresponsible.

What also seems to be disregarded is that governments have a solemn duty to protect their citizens from unjust aggression - including that which arises from other citizens.  That is an overriding concern, and in fact one that must rise above the "redemption" of one criminal.  So without at least life imprisonment, just what does His Holiness think should be done with those violent criminals who simply won't be "redeemed"?  Do I hear crickets?

Ladies and gentlemen, sometimes we must disagree vociferously with our Church leaders in matters of "prudential judgment".  Clearly this is one of them.  I link now to excellent points by Vox Cantoris.

Again, the MCC writings are below this jump break.

Dissident Sr Helen Prejean In The Catholic Standard

Sister Helen Prejean, author of "Dead Man Walking" (a tome against capital punishment) was featured in the February 23rd issue of the Catholic Standard.  This particular piece is only found in the paper edition, not online.

Apparently her book was made into an opera and she gave a presentation on it at the Washington National Cathedral.  This presentation that included a panel of leaders of various religions was sponsored by "Catholic Mobilization Network To End The Death Penalty".  Isn't that a mouthful?  While we can be grateful that this gabfest didn't occur in a Catholic facility, we can wonder why the Standard staff saw fit to devote an entire page to it.

Sister claims to be opposed to abortion, but other problems abound as evidenced here.  At the 2008 Democratic Interfaith Gathering, she said “And in the Christian tradition, there are those who say God allowed or even willed his own son, Jesus, to be sacrificed and killed on the cross in payment for our sins!  And when we kill criminals we have chaplains in death houses!  And when we kill criminals for their crimes God accepts their death in payment for their sins so they can go to heaven!  What kind of god do we believe in?!  What kind of father would demand the death of a son?  Is this a god?  Or is it an ogre, a monster, created by our own violent impulses?  We project so this is God who wants vengeance, like we want vengeance.  Truly there are contradictory images of God in the Bible.  On which one will we model our lives?"  She blasphemed against God the Father and the Crucifixion.

She "officiated" at the wedding of Susan Sarandon's daughter.  Only clergy do that.  Does this point to dissidence regarding women and the priesthood?  It would appear so.  She also seems to condone the normalization of homosexual perversions in society.  I state all of this to demonstrate that Sister Helen Prejean has not one shred of credibility whatsoever to lecture Catholics on anything, let alone moral issues.

Several years ago, Judie Brown of American Life League touched upon Sister's seeming indifference to the murders of tiny children.  There does seem to be a lack of proportion in Sister's mind when it comes to the importance of both abortion and capital punishment in comparison to each other.  I've blogged about the matter in the past and now link to those posts.  In the first post in that anthology, I highlighted some statistics showing that for every convicted criminal executed there were 42,000 babies legally murdered.  In the third post I pointed out that the effort to eliminate all capital punishment might well be an act of disobedience to God Himself for it was He who charged civil governments with that responsibility.

Some might be understandably befuddled as to why so many of those who seek to abolish capital punishment actually applaud the murders of tiny infants.  I was among that number until the answer dawned upon me almost instantaneously.  The repugnance that pro-aborts feel towards capital punishment actually stems from both guilt and fear.  In a saner time, these same pro-aborts, precisely because of their support, if not cooperation with and even commission of the crime of baby-murder, would themselves be eligible for the death penalty.  As it is, they are in grave danger of damnation unless they repent.

What I still fail to understand is how any reliable Catholic news outlet could devote an entire page of newsprint to someone who deviates from Catholc morality.  This article is just the latest example of why the Catholic Standard connot be considered a reliable Catholic news source.  Regrettably we'll see new reasons in the not-too-distant future.

Woe To You That Call Evil Good, And Good Evil

That passage from Isaiah 5:20 is a strong admonition to left-leaning Catholics who have joined the progressive clarion call to fight all kinds of what they consider to be "social injustices" that may not be unjust at all.  The measure of what is good or evil, just or unjust is to be found in the Church's teaching traditions of the past two centuries, as opposed to popular fads that are spewing forth from dissident Catholic quarters.

Let's look at immigration, since these left-wing quarters, from the top down (that means you, USCCB) are having hissy fits about President Trump's ongoing efforts to expel foreign invaders.  The left-wing, clergy included, refuse to acknowledge that our concerns lie not with those who immigrate in conformity with our applicable laws, but with those who flout our laws and sneak inside the US.  They are, by definition, criminals.  They are breaking US law that does comply with Catholic moral theology.  In obfuscating that important distinction, they commit serious sins against the Eighth Commandment.  I've written a bit on this topic over the years; here's a collection of it.  So in this case, what's being called "evil" is the responsible regulating of immigration and what's being called "good" is the direct disobedience of immigration laws and being accessories to these crimes.

Let's move to another darling cause of the progressives - gun control.  The left is all gung-ho on this bugaboo, not addressing the fact that criminals, by definition, disobey laws.   The only ones impacted would be law-abiding citizens who desire to own firearms for the protection of themselves and their families.  Whenever a shooting happens, immediately the left starts kveling about the need for firearm restriction - never the apprehension of criminals.  Would that impinge too greatly on the Democratic voting base?  Look at England.  They've essentially outlawed guns, so what happens? Knife attacks arise - surprise!  The "geniuses" governing England are now into (wait for it!) knife-control!  Same thing in Red China!

Again, I've written a bit about that.  See here.  Please note that the top post explains why I believe that the USCCB's stance on gun control runs counter to Catholic moral theology.  Once upon a time I believed that this was an area in which good people could disagree.  I no longer hold onto that delusion.  The right to adequate self defense is a moral good that no one may call evil, on pain of sin.  A former pro-life leader, Rob Schenck, has glommed onto the erroneous push for arms banning, and in the process has allowed his thinking on basic pro-life issues to become corrupted.  I'll have more to say on that later.

Let's move on to the death penalty or capital punishment.  If gun control is an attack on the good of self-defense, the push to eliminate the death penalty is an attack on the good of civil government protecting its citizens from violent criminals.  Again, the USCCB and their dutiful puppets are lock-step with their Soros-esque sugar-daddies in their shielding of criminals from the death penalty.  Again, I've written much on that and won't rehash everything, but will elaborate on one major point.  In the past, all the popes have upheld the legitimacy and the good of capital punishment.  The most recent catechism from Pope John Paul II does the same.  However, last year Pope Francis annnounced his intention to rewrite the catechism to say that the death penalty is inadmissable.  I said it then, I'll say it now; THIS IS HERESY.   Of course the USCCB intends to happily comply in promulgating this heresy.  So now the good of capital punishment has been called evil, and this error has reached the proportions of full-blown heresy.

The USCCB, their obedient state-wide counterparts and the rest of their lapdogs are fully engaged in calling good "evil", and evil "good".  They have jettisoned all authentic moral bearing for the favors of money, power, and worldly prestige.  In so doing they have allowed their own thinking to become clouded, as have those who unthinkingly swallow the progressive bile simply because it comes from men wearing miters.

However, there have been pro-life leaders who, themselves succumbing to the siren calls of emotion-based leftwing sentiments, have allowed their pro-life beliefs to become weak and uncertain.  In other words, by assuming progressive positions on immigration, gun control, etc, they have assumed progressive positions in pro-life matters as well.  I have already mentioned Rob Schenck a few paragraphs back.  He now supports the legalized murder of children.  Another former pro-life leader, John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, became so enamored of progressivism that he cast his vote for the rabidly pro-abortion Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Both of these men clearly called evil "good".

Ladies and gentlemen, liberalism is harmful to the soul and can impede eternal salvation.

The Pope Has Uttered Heresy. Is The Seat Of Peter Vacant?

From the Catholic News Service (official news outlet of the USCCB), we read that the "pope revises catechism to say that death penalty is inadmissible".  With that the pope has squarely plopped himself into full-blown heresy.

It cannot be denied.  No pope can change Church teaching.  The Church's teachings are immutable for they emanate from God, who is Himself immutable.  Throughout the centuries the Church has always upheld the legitimacy and usefulness of capital punishment.  No one pope can turn around and contradict all his predecessors, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church etc without pronouncing heresy.

Many blogging colleagues have written excellent analyses of this latest antic of Pope Francis'.  Rather than "reinvent the wheel", I'll now link to them for your reference and reading.

• One Peter Five - with a discussion on why the pope's statement is formal heresy
• Ann Barnhardt - with a smattering of teaching throughout the years
• AKA Catholic - detailing how Pope John Paul II's errors facilitated today's heresy
• Remnant - exposing the arrogance behind Francis' stunt.
• My own prior writings - including why abolishment of the death penalty is itself sinful

This heresy needs to be put in some context.  I don't think I'm the only one to find it very interesting that the pope plopped this stinker just as we are all focused on the sodomite rapists among the episcopate.  In a saner time, they would be eligible for the death penalty, but I digress.

We also notice that this is happening as there is much discussion on:

• admission of divorced and "remarried", that is, adulterers, to Holy Communion
• admission of non-Catholics to Holy Communion
• allowing dissident women to pretend that they are "deaconesses"
• attempts to normalize sodomy in the Church (e.g., amoralis lamentia)

The things stated above would all be heretical.  Might the push to demonize capital punishment be a "trial balloon", so to speak, to get faithful Catholics to swallow the false notion that immutable Church teaching can be "tweaked" here and there?  Some faithful Catholics might buy the canard that capital punishment might well be declared wrong in opposition to centuries of Tradition.  But right there, the camel has stuck his nose under the tent, for if Tradition can be disregarded with respect to capital punishment, why not with respect to contraception or homosexuality or divorce/remarriage or even abortion?

Formal heresy has been uttered.  Is Peter's seat vacant?

September's Poop Video - A Travesty Against God's Justice

H/T Canon 212

In September's Poop Video, Francis calls upon all Catholics to "pray for abolition of the death penalty".  Here it is now.  Below that I will explain why I believe this is supremely wrong and spiritually poisonous.

So much error.  So little time.  But I'll do my level best to unpack this crap.

I've written much about Francis' dalliance with heresy in calling for the abolition of the death penalty.  I need not rehash those writings in this post.  If the reader would like to dismiss my writings as simply the opinion of some "rigid rad-trad", go right ahead.  Will you say the same of previous popes, some of them canonized and beatified?  How about two prominent Doctors of the Church: Augustine and Aquinas?

I believe this poop video schlock isn't just about the death penalty, per se.  In fact, Francis' animus towards the death penalty is simply a trial balloon, to see how much he can get away with completely twisting Church teaching to be just the opposite of what it's always been.  The death penalty is a relatively easy topic for him to use, since many Catholics are ambivalent towards capital punishment.  Their own feelings towards the matter obscures their perception of the larger picture of the totality of Church teaching.  If Francis can work his wiles with the death penalty, it would be so much easier to attack other areas of Church teaching.

And those attacks are starting.  Last month the Pontifical Academy for Life, led by homophile Archbishop Paglia, released a document called "Theological Ethics of Life: Scripture, Tradition, and Practical Challenges".  This tome calls into question the Church's teachings on contraception.  The question is, what will Francis do with this?  It appears that many of the PAL were not aware of this document.  So only a few concocted this thing in a rather secretive manner.

So this poop video appears to be an attempt to condition Catholics to passively accept more attacks on Church teaching, but maybe it's worse than that.

Not only is Francis announcing his attempt to mutilate the Teachings of the Church regarding the death penalty, that is, to commit heresy, but he is trying to con Catholics into formal cooperation with his sinful intentions.  For many Catholics who are ignorant of the tenets of their Faith, their personal culpability may be mitigated somewhat, but I doubt that it is fully erased for the heresy does exist and they would be giving their assent to it.

We now know there are proceedings underway to change the Church's teachings regarding the sinfulness of contraception.  If Francis succeeds into duping Catholics to go along with disregard for Church teaching regarding the death penalty, it's all the more easier to convince these same Catholics that "Church teaching can change" regarding contraception.  Of course we know from our 50+ years of history that the status of abortion will soon follow that of contraception.  Recall that last week, Francis confirmed and renewed Father James Martin's appointment as advisor for Vatican communications.  Recall also that after the Dobbs ruling, Martin released a tweet in which he said, "a one-minute-old zygote is not the same as a nine-month-old baby about to be born".  Yes, he did have the nerve to say that.  But maybe that's because he knows his higher-ups are of the same mind-set as he.

I certainly cannot join in prayer for that "intention".  Truth be told, I stopped praying "for the pope's intentions during my morning offerings.  Instead, I pray for his conversion to the One True Faith.

Did The Pope Utter Heresy In Regard To The Death Penalty?

We know that several of the previous pontiffs have personally opposed the death penalty.  Pope Saint John Paul II was one.  He wrote about it in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae.  However, he acknowledged that the state still had the right to legitimate use of the death penalty.  He never tried to abolish it outright.  He couldn't, for the legitimacy of the death penalty has been established Church teaching for the past 2,000 years.  I will link to two blogging colleagues who wrote pieces in response to the erroneous efforts by a number of Catholic press outlets.  One is by From Rome and the other from One Peter Five.  In my post two weeks ago I also presented some Catholic truth on the matter.  I think all this supports From Rome's premise, that it is a heresy to claim that capital punishment is wrong.

That makes the pope's words, released this morning by Vatican news outlets, to be quite troubling.

He stated today that the death penalty is "inadmissible, however serious the crime".  Ladies and gentlemen, that is not Catholic doctrine - and thus not the teaching of Jesus Christ.  Will this pope declare that his predecessors and many Doctors of the Church to be in error?  He rails against "punishing one murder with another".  His statement does not do justice to the definition of "murder" according to Catholic moral theology, as I explained in my March 6th post.

No pope can contradict the perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church - but that is precisely what Pope Francis did this morning!  St Thomas Aquinas defines heresy as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith in Christ, corrupt its dogmas."

So does this blanket condemnation of capital punishment constitute heresy?

Maryland Catholic Conference Errs (Again) With Death Penalty

In today's Catholic Standard, page 3 in print and online here, the Maryland Catholic Conference is beating its chest over its faux-victoire regarding the abolition of the death penalty in Maryland.  I stated my case clearly how the abolition of the death penalty actually runs counter to Church teaching and Evangelium Vitae in particular.  I needn't rehash all that here.

I also stated in that post that there is an effort underway to petition this abolition to the next Maryland referendum.  I signed that petition, no doubt to the consternation of Mary Ellen Russell.  In the Standard article, read that little insert of hers that's designed to cajole faithful Catholics into eschewing the referendum petition.  She talks of the repeal of the death penalty as "an integral part of our pro-life efforts to uphold the sanctity of all human life."  No, it is not!  I'd strongly suggest that she study Evangelium Vitae and notice that there is a world of difference between the inherent evil of taking the most innocent human life - that is, murder and the exercise of legitimate authority a charge laid upon it by God Himself.

She then takes a direct pot-shot at the referendum effort itself, saying "the referendum will only divide the prolife community and drain scarce time and resources from other more important prolife goals".  Well, guess what, Ms Russell?  On both counts here, it's the Maryland Catholic Conference (under your less-than-stellar leadership) that stands guilty as charged!

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.

Of Medals, Seamless Garment, And Corruption

I posted the above from Father West for he says eloquently what I've been trying to say to those Catholics who not only refuse to acknowledge the evidence of Pope Francis' misdeeds but who lash out (in fits of obvious denial of reality) at those of us who are trying to shine much-needed light on these situations.  At one time I thought that these friends were simply too trusting and a bit simplistic in their views on the papacy.  Given their increasingly vitriolic reactions to our efforts, I must wonder if there is some intellectual dishonesty influencing them.

Let's look at two things.

Last week we learned that the pope gave a medal that is only given to a Commander of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of St Gregory to a rabidly pro-abortion Dutch politician.  Now they've gone into "damage control" according to Austin Ruse.  Perhaps the "control" should be rendered "augmentation".  We read that "the medal was no more than part of a protocol exchange".  Really?  I'm sure the Vatican has engaged in many, many protocol exchanges with other visiting dignitaries over the past centuries.  When, oh when, has the Vatican ever given such medals in the past as part of "protocol exchanges"?

Then the article says, "In recent months, the Vatican has played host to a steady stream of speakers who stand in public opposition to Church teaching on a whole host of issues including Governor Jerry Brown of California."  Now hold this thought for a moment while I bring up a related matter.

Today the annual March for Life occurred.  In addition to the main march in Washington DC, similar marches occurred elsewhere at the same time for the sake of those who were unable to make the journey to DC.  Such was the case in Little Rock, AR.  The local marches there were first organized by local bishops.  However, this year, Bishop Anthony Taylor of the Diocese of Little Rock boycotted the march because the local pro-life organizations had booked as a speaker someone who supports the use of the death penalty.  The speaker is Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, whose pro-life credentials seem to be totally in line with traditional Catholic morality as opposed to the "seamless garment" caricature of the same.  Bishop Taylor, in ascribing capital punishment the same status as baby-murder, is dissenting from Catholic moral teaching.  I've posted before why the move to eliminate the use of all capital punishment may well be its own heresy.  But the death penalty is not today's main consideration.

Consider both of the preceding paragraphs.  One the one hand, you have rabid pro-aborts being wined and dined and even given medals by the pope. These pro-aborts, though, are good little progressives who whine about capital punishment, climate-change junk-science, immigration.  On the other hand, you have a bishop snubbing a march for life because another speaker doesn't toady to the progressive talking points on capital punishment.  A consideration of both these scenarios together buttresses my suspicions that the so-called "seamless garment" yak is nothing more than a smokescreen for pro-abortion infiltration of the Church.

By the way: Eccles and Bosco have some pointers in giving out medals.

National Catholic Register And Capital Punishment

The National Catholic Register, a normally sensible publication, has linked arms with some not-so-sensible publications (America and National Catholic Reporter) and partook of their kool-aid.  They have glommed onto the push to end capital punishment.  I've blogged before about the consequences of embracing positions that are not in accordance with Catholic tradition.  In one of those posts I put forth my reasons for believing that the push to end capital punishment is a slap in the face to God Himself.

The Register article features one quote of Bishop Thomas Wenski of Miami: "The use of the death penalty devalues human life and diminishes respect for human dignity. We bishops continue to say: We cannot teach killing is wrong by killing."

We'll unpack the last sentence, for therein lies some confusion.  The Fifth Commandment prohibits murder, not killing.  Owing to poor translations from the Hebrew, we do have some confusion.  "Murder" and "killing" are not the same.  Murder is defined as "the deliberate taking of innocent human life". While all murder involves killing, the converse does not hold.   There is, for example, the killing that must sometimes happen in the course of self-defense; no sane person will call that "murder".  Therefore I'd say to Bishop Wenski that it is not "killing" that is wrong per se, but "murder".  Moreover, the "killing" done by capital punishment is done after due process of justice whereby the condemned is adjudicated not innocent, but guilty of capital crimes.

Further down into the article, Cardinal O'Malley called capital punishment "institutionalized practice of violence".  Here again we have a problem with the defining of terms.  Violence is defined by Catholic moral theology as "the unjust use of force".  In this case, "force" and "violence" are being confused by the Cardinal.  After the due process of justice as mentioned above, the use of deadly force in capital punishment is not "unjust".

A blogging colleague, Veneremurcernui at A Blog for Dallas Are Catholics has his post on this matter.  In it he had video of a homily on the topic.  I post that below.  We pray for the salvation of those condemned.  We pray also for the 3500 babies murdered each day via abortion, for whereas the condemned criminals can avail themselves of the sacraments, the innocent babies haven't that advantage.

No Wonder Progressives Rail Against The Death Penalty!

 A few days ago I put up a post containing Taylor Marshall's commentary about the perversion that a priest committed atop the altar of his parish church, in effect desecrating it with his gross sacrilege.  Taylor mentions that the altar is symbolic of Christ Himself; that is why there are five crosses carved into each Catholic altar.  He noted that in more sane and reverent times, such deliberate desecration and sacrilege would have garnered the death penalty for the perpetrator.

He said this in passing, and I was prepared to let it remain a lesser point.  However, this is NOT the first time that a Catholic altar was desecrated - not so much with sexual perversion as with rank idolatry.  I remind you of this outrage, right after the pachamama idols were tossed in the Tiber.  This detailed what happened during the closing Mass of that climate-change gabfest during which the pachamamas desecrated the Vatican gardens and several Catholic churhes before being hurled into the Tiber.  As you watch the video of the Mass, take notice of how many times the camera zooms onto that plant.  Then the plant is placed on the altar in direct disobedience to the GIRM.  Take note particularly from 55:38 to 56:20.  Recall from the previous paragraph that any Catholic altar is representative of Christ Himself - and that defilements of said altars at one time were punished via the death penalty.

I'm going to link now to an article in Catholic World Report, where the author directs three questions to opponents of the death penalty.  These questions, in my opinion, reduce to shreds any attempt to vilify the death penalty.  But have you noticed that among death penalty opponents are all proponents of abortion, gay perversions along with heretics and those who blaspheme and commit vile sacriledge?  One might ask why, but I think the answer to that is quite obvious; they know that in a saner time, they themselves would be eligible for capital punishment.  Let us pray that these people come quickly to repentance.

More Clarity Regarding The Death Penalty

In regards to my post last week regarding the heretical "papal intentions for the month of September", I post this video for your consideration.  It is occasioned by the recent murder of a woman named Eliza Fletcher as she was jogging.

Again I emphasize that to call the death penalty "morally inadmissible" is to utter an objectively heretical statement as it runs counter to Church teaching.  We can debate its applicability to given situations.  That is something we can never do with abortion, since abortion is always the deliberate taking of innocent human life.

If we waver and state that Church teaching can be reversed with regard to capital punishment, we allow the erroneous notion that the Church's teachings can also be contradicted and mutated in other areas.  We see that Humanae Vitae is already in the Vatican crosshairs.

See the danger?

It's Not Just About Capital Punishment

In a blog post yesterday, Msgr Pope appears to be minimizing the damage done by Pope Francis' attempt to change Church doctrine and to chide faithful Catholics (including Yours Truly) into silence.  Please remember that this blog is hosted on a server owned by the Archdiocese of Washington and that he has been quashed by them before.  However, if you read through the comments, you'll see that many of his readers comprehend the far-reaching implications of this latest action by Pope Francis.  Edward Feser of First Things elaborates on this further.

The Not-At-All Catholic Reporter opined last week that abortion should not be criminalized and that if we really want to end abortion, we'll need "support for birth control".  In other words, to eliminate one evil, substitute another.  In this screed against laws to prevent abortion, I wonder what the authors would think if we were to substitute "racism" for "abortion"?  But I digress.

Of course they waxed lyrical over Francis' death penalty gaffe and what they acknowledge as an attempt to change Church teaching.  They really have no concern for obeying Church teaching, as evidenced by their dismissive attitudes towards contraception.  But perhaps they believe that the pope will try to bastardize the Church's teachings on contraception.  I regret they may be correct in that prediction.

Careful! If You Are A Faithful Catholic, You Might Be A Nazi!

Six days ago, it was announced that 100 Catholic clergy and scholars have signed a petition that calls Pope Francis to repentance for facilitating the pachamama worship in various Churches in Rome.  The list of signatories is growing.

Could that be a reason why the pope has compared conservatives to nazis?  This happened at a meeting of the International Association of Penal Law.  He laid into capitalism (but said nothing of socialism, if you'll notice), "ecological sins", the death penalty and so on.  By the way - for an excellent treatment of capital punishment, see what the late Fr John Hardon had to say on the matter.

Speaking of "ecological sins", he is contemplating the addition of those faux-sins to the catechism.  He calls them "sins against our common home".  As several theologians have pointed out, one can sin only against God and those created in His image and likeness.  This isn't just sloppy theology, I suspect he is engaging in erroneous personification of the planet, and perhaps seguing into deification of the same.  Additionally, no one can simply proclaim the existence of a new set of "sins".  Either a given action was always a sin or it isn't now.  The earth was given to us by God for our usage, and we must be careful stewards of the earth, both to honor God and to preserve it for the use of other persons.  The earth, as an impersonal entity, has no inherent claim on the solicitude of man for its own sake.

Perhaps the statement of that previous paragraph (and others uttered by many faithful Catholics) is why the pope is now railing against us.  He is trying to cow us into silence.  We cannot let that happen.

Catholic Standard Watch: Shilling For Democrats On The Sly

On page 5 of the Catholic Standard's October 17 issue, (here, in the online edition) we find a letter written by Cardinal Gregory that deals with the upcoming elections.  While there are truths to be found therein, we also are none too surprised to see "seamless-garment" (hereafter called "seamless garbage") nonsense embedded in it.

We are pleased that Gregory made mention of the need for Maryland citizens to cast a "no" vote for Ballot Question 1, although his reasons are deficient.  We thnk that deficiency is by design.  He made no mention of the enshrining into the MD constitution the de facto disenfranchising of parental rights when it comes to making healthcare decisions for their children.  He made no mention that the proposed amendment would allow minor chidren to commence "sex changes" despite parental objections, nor even abut the fact that this amendment would pave the way for state-coerced abortions.  His omission of the gay-agenda aspects of this "reproductive freedom amendment" is highly suspect, and I will elaborate on that in this post.

Earlier in that same letter, Gregory said, "the Church does not tell you how to vote."  Oh, really?  Then what was the pastor and staff of St Thomas More doing in their distribution of Harris shirts, going so far as to announce it from the pulpit after a Sunday Mass?  I reported that a few weeks ago. 

Right after his remarks on Question 1 comes the seamless-garbage pabulum.  I quote "instead of a sole focus on access to abortion, it is necessary to advocate for comprehensive solutions.." etc.  

On page 3 of that same issue (here in the online edition), Cindy Wooden of the Catholic News Service (media outreach of the USCCB) seemed to offer some commentary on Gregory's letter, taking some liberties to embellish it a bit.  She quotes him as saying "that umbrella is wide enough to also include the dignity of people who are seeking entry into our country as immigrants."  That's odd!  I did word searches on Gregory's letter and did not find the words "immigrant" or "umbrella" therein!  Hmm!  For that matter, he didn't mention "capital punishment" either.  At best, this is sloppy journalism.  But what can one expect from the USCCB?

A few paragraphs up, I said that I'd elaborate on the complete lack of mention the gay-pandering aspects of the proposed MD amendment on the part of the MD bishops.  I shall now do so.  Please refer to my first linked article about St Thomas More.  Embedded in that post is a memo to the MD priests issued by Jenny Kraska, Executive Director for the Maryland Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Among other things, Kraska ordered the priests not to use materials produced by Health Not Harm MD.  Here is HNH's website.  Please peruse it.  You will see that their treatment of the amendment is far more comprehensive than that of the MCC.  Furthermore, they urge good people to educate their fellow citizens about the amendment, whereas there is no encouragement of outreach in the MCC's site.  Now why, oh why, does the MCC omit any mention of the gay agenda behind the proposed "Reproductive Freedom Amendment "?

Consider the previous actions of both Cardinal Gregory and Archbishop Lori regarding gay infestation in the Church.  In August, dissident gay-pandering Father James Martin SJ held a gay-gab-fest at Georgetown University.  Cardinal Gregory offered a Mass that was part of this debacle.  The Standard actually published Gregory's screed homily.  As you can see, this blather would have done the Washington Blade proud.

A few months prior to that, I attended the annual Archdiocese of Baltimore Social Ministry Convocation.  I detailed my experience in three posts between April and May of this year.  Chief among the delightful (?) presentations was the spectacle of Catholics being lectured to by a practicing gay dude.  One of Baltimore's auxiliary bishops was there at the close.  This debacle happened under the auspices of the Archdiocese of Baltimore Office of Life, Justice and Peace (what a mouthful!).  Its director, Erin Younkins, was in attendance and had been part of the planning committee, as she had done in previous years.  Archbishop Lori knew what was going to happen and allowed it.

The escapades described in the preceding two paragraphs are just the latest.  It doesn't take too much intellectual strain to understand why the Maryland bishops are loathe to oppose their gay-agenda pals, even if it means soft-pedalling the fight against the amendment and allowing abortion the mutilation of minors to be enshrined in the Maryland Constitution.

Not to be outdone, Msgr John Enzler, Catholic Charities affiliate, penned an article on page 6 of that same issue, and here in the online edition.  The poor guy is confused, you see?  He states, "navigating the party platforms and candidate's stances on various issues like immigration, abortion, death penalty and more can become quite confusing and contradictory."  Notice that abortion is just another issue, not treated as the deliberate act of murder that it is.  Also notice that we don't even see abortion listed as the first issue.  But consider that this is coming from someone whose political priorities are terribly askew from Catholic morality, as evidenced here.  Later on, he says, "my guiding principle when voting is to consider what would Jesus say, and what would He want me to do?...It doesn't mean that everyone will come to the same conclusion."  Full stop!  Yes, it does, unless we are to hold the blasphemous belief that Jesus has a split-personality disorder.  But that's the kind of nonsense uttered by someone who supports pro-abortion candidates over pro-life candidates.  With this kind of nonsensical thinking, Cathollics of weak minds, and very likely weak morals, could feel themselves quite assured as they cast votes for Kamala Harris.

I humbly present (again) factors for consideration when casting your votes.