Every now and then I read strange stories about executions in the US. Things like executions being “rushed through” because the substance used to execute the criminal is about to expire.
It all seems absurd to me.
It is as if a criminal had a sort of right to be executed in the most painless, safe, clinically proven method possible. Such a right has never existed, not should it.
Either it is unjust to condemn a criminal to the death penalty, or it isn’t. Catholic doctrine has always said it is justified when the circumstances are sufficiently serious. That’s it. Besides the obvious necessity of not choosing a method unnecessarily painful, there is no obligation to go the extra ten miles to make the experience of being executed extremely complicated and extremely expensive, by the way offering to the defence attorneys countless ways to try to delay the (allegedly) inevitable.
In more Christian times all these problems did not exist. One got either shot or hanged, and that was that. In the Papal States, civilians normally got hanged, though apparently it was not always that way (Tosca‘s Cavaradossi gets a firing squad for an execution that should be fake, but isn’t; it might be poetic licence as he wasn’t a military man, I don’t know).
Either way, it wasn’t very long, and anyone who wanted to avoid the short suffering that was necessary merely had to avoid being executed. Often, the criminal would die instantly or almost instantly. But honestly, it isn’t too much to ask, say, a murderer to wait thirty second before dying. Tough luck, boy (or girl). You should have thought about it before.
In the Age of Effeminacy, this seems to be too much. The entire kindergarten assembles and decides what is the absolutely darnedest safest way to execute one. Why?
Murder = noose. This is what the kindergarten needs to be told. In the Papal States, young boys were made to assist to public executions, and no Nazi social worker crying “child abuse” in sight.
You see a man being hanged. It sits. Which is exactly what is supposed to happen.
Life is a simple thing, but the loss of faith makes everything complicated. Suddenly innocent children can be murdered in the womb in the most atrocious way, but condemned criminals have every right to the most immaculate white gloves, foxes become more precious that babies, and the planet God has created becomes endangered by one of his most diffused components, which is most certainly not a pollutant.
Let us learn from our very Catholic forefathers, and from our extremely saintly Popes of the past.
Get a noose and a priest, and be done with it.
As a (hopefully) good Catholic, I follow Church teaching on what the Church calls capital punishment, and pretty much the rest of the world calls death penalty.
It seems the twelve jurors at the trial of the Boston Marathon Bombers agree with me at least in extreme cases, because they have condemned young Tsarnaev to the death penalty through lethal injection. Now, let us add some cynical reflection to the news, because cynical reflections are exactly what you have grown to expect from this little effort.
1. Young Tsarnaev will, very possibly, never be executed. Far more probably, he will remain on death row for an indefinite, but very long number of years as a very long, very costly appeal and, in case, post-trial legal confrontation takes its course. It is nothing less than astonishing that there should be Countries where the decision about the execution of a sentence goes on for many times what it took to reach that sentence in the first place. It goes to show the immense stupidity of the modern, hypersensitive, so-called “human-rights” infested legal systems. If you asked me, Mr Tsarnaev would now be entitled to an appeal, to be conducted swiftly and accurately. If the sentence is confirmed, the only rights Mr Tsarnaev would then have would be limited to a priest (Catholic, of course; which is the only type anyway), a good last meal and a cigarette before facing the gallows at dawn the following day. But hey, it's just me.
2. The bleeding hearts in Massachusetts and elsewhere will soon find a new hero. Tales of the poor “child” misled by his evil brother will start circulating. Oh, the cruelty of the West! But the child didn't mean to harm! He only wanted to play! He is such a nice guy!
A country that allows a young girl to kill her baby in the womb discusses whether a grown man really wanted to make a massacre. Idiots.
3. Francis The Evil Clown will very probably jump on the bandwagon, as this would give him another wonderful opportunity to undermine Catholic teaching and confuse Catholics the world over, whilst making himself oh so beautiful in the eyes of the liberal crowds.
4. Whilst I approve of the sentence, it seems clear to me it only came about because of the big media impact and the resulting huge pressure on the jurors. The fact that twelve out of twelve jurors had to agree to the death penalty goes to show how high the hurdle was. If Young Tsarnaev had been Black, and had killed three White policemen, I wonder if the outcome would have been the same.
5. One is disappointed – as so often – at the softness of these supposed Jihad warriors. Young Tsarnaev should have welcomed his martyrdom, no doubt savouring the seventy-two girls with recyclable hymen he thinks are awaiting him.
Oh ye bastards of little infidel faith! It is always like that, you know: these Arabs always threat with the explosion of the entire Arab world, and three weeks later they are there taking down monuments, swearing peaceful intent and throwing shoes at their heroes of yesterday; as seen in 1990 in Kuwait, 2001 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Iraq.
Islam is a paper tiger. The West is so superior to them in absolutely everything, that they could be forced to silent submission in no time; they would even embrace the punishment, because Muslims reacts extremely well to violence from their masters (as seen in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, everywhere). Unfortunately, the West is dominated by a Country run by a cultural Muslim, limp-wristed, liberal atheist moron, so we are making no use at all of our staggering superiority.
Still: Mr Tsarnaev is going to get old in jail. Catholic teaching on Capital punishment is still very far from being implemented.
I am informed that Utah might reintroduce execution of capital punishment via firing squad, as the extremely sophisticated poisons needed to execute people in a way halfway satisfying your typical faggo-liberal Latte-sipping whino become scarce.
Obviously, the pansy army has reacted calling a firing squad “barbaric”.
Please look at the implications. If a firing squad is barbaric, then every foreign military operation of the US is “barbaric”, the “American Sniper” was a top Barbarian, and everyone who carries a firearm is basically a savage. See where they are going?
There is nothing wrong with a firing squad. Honest, truthful, manful way of executing someone. Is it painful? Rarely for long, I would say, and in many cases only for an instant. But a propos pain: how many murderers take special care that their victims die an absolutely painless death? How many can say to the judge: “look, Your Honour: I went to extraordinary expenses to buy the best poison that money can buy; the one that would give my victim an absolutely non-barbaric death! Could I please receive the same courtesy from the taxpayer? I know it's expensive but cut me some slack, I am dying here…”
My hunch is that they aren't very numerous, and your garden variety death row inhabitant is not very averse to inflicting pain, either. But I digress…
Execution is meant to have the convicted killed. Get over it. You do not want to get executed? I do not think is a very difficult thing to do.
In Mundabor's Utah, things would run like in the good old times: civilians (men and women) get hanged, whilst soldiers and people executed by the army get the firing squad. Easy peasy.
Is, then, execution by hanging “barbaric”? Were the Papal States barbaric? Were they unable to find anything more “civilised”, like giving people some poisoned herbs in Socrates style (no great fun, that, I bet), or giving them a warm bath with complimentary wrist-cutting in Seneca fashion? Did they want to save the expense of the bullet? Or did those wise men of the past not think, instead, that hanging is just a perfectly adequate and functional way of execution, and perfectly fitting for the purpose?
“But Mundabor! Mundabor! Some of them do not die instantly! They will slowly suffocate for thirty or more seconds!”
Get a grip, and grow a pair. When you or I die (of a stroke, or heart attack) our farewell from this vale of tears might be not a bit less painful. It might,min fact, be a lot more painful, and for a much, much longer time! Is God, then, barbaric? Should we all, then, receive an injection to avoid the danger of pain, before a cruel God inflicts us some pain far worse than any hanging, let alone firing squad?
As far as I am concerned tell me where to sign for thirty or forty second of pain (or whatever it is God in His wisdom decides to send me) if they allow me the grace of final repentance. Who knows how many, who had mocked the priest offering them the crucifix, saved their soul in the gasps of death? Who is better off, that man or the one who got his neck bone snapped instantly, and died unrepented?
It is nothing less than astonishing that wussydom is so prevalent nowadays that hanging, or even the firing squad, are considered “barbaric”. What a bunch of limp-wristed pansies.
Ask Pope Blessed Pius IX how a criminal should be executed.
He will have no hesitation.
For the umpteenth times, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History, known among friends as TMAHICH, exhibits himself in another senseless, anti-Catholic rant against Capital Punishment. I would call him stupid, but Francis isn't stupid, though he certainly is not a genius. He is an evil enemy of the Church, and a man of average or less than average intelligence believing himself a messiah of the poor.
I read around heavy cannon fire to this latest act of sabotage. I found this one particularly beautiful.
But this is not the object of this post. The object of this post is whether I should go on writing the same things, which all my readers (or almost all of them) already know.
The answer to this is: yes, I will. I will if it bores you to death. I will if you feel the sudden impulse to throw your tablet from the window of your train. I will if you feel the urge, on the same train, to cry: “Aaaarrrgghhhh! Not AGAIN!” on reading the last post about TMAHICH's one thousand times repeated stupid or evil statement.
I have to do it, because he does. I have to keep talking of the same old issues, because he keeps doing the same. I will not start a series of blog posts about, say, the works of mercy and us and pretend Francis can simply be ignored. Francis can't be ignored, because he is the Pope who keeps being Satan's most valuable ally day in and day out. I know you are fed up. You do not even imagine how much I am. But if the man keeps sending his bombers, we Catholic bloggers will have to keep giving them some good Flak.
As long as Francis keeps sending down bombs, we must fire our cannons. He does not tire, nor should we.
Let us see who is more stubborn. This thing might backfire when the flak becomes too much to bear (remember the planned carpet bombing of the Sacrament of Communion in October? He aborted the mission all right when the flak caused too much losses), but in any way he should never take us by exhaustion.
If I die before Francis, at least I will have the consolation of departing this wasteland and vale of tears knowing that I remained at the cannon to the last. If, as it is far more probable, he dies before me, this is one gunmen who will see the big, fat, humble white bomber going down in smoke with no little satisfaction, and waving his helmet in the air.
Let's see, then, who is more stubborn.
Please don't throw your tablet out of the train's window.
It damages the environment. Pretty much the only thing which, if you listen to TMAHICH, will send you to hell, in the company of all those rosary prayers and doctors of the law.
Harvesting The Fruit has an excellent post about the heretical thinking that must underlie the post V II opposition to Capital Punishment, which the people call Death Penalty. As we live in pernicious times of creeping heresy in pretty much every aspect of Catholic thinking, the appeal to correct, traditional understanding can never be too insistent.
I would like to add to the considerations linked to some words of mine about what is the most important argument in favour of the Capital Punishment you should make at your next Thanksgiving Lunch, and what reflections you might add to it. In order to make the argument, we must start from the error, that is: from the Catechism of JP II. Paragraph 2267 recites thus:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
You see here a typical example of V II creeping heresy: the teaching of the church is reaffirmed in principle, but immediately afterwards it is pickaxed in practice. We aren’t against, you see. But todaay, aahhh, todaaay it’s different…
No, it’s not different at all.
Firstly, paragraph 2267 refuses to address the matter of deterrence. The instinct to live being very strong, it follows that the threat of removing the good of life must, reasonably, have an effect on a number of potential situations which would, otherwise, possibly lead to a murder. To ignore the simple reality of deterrence is to ignore reality, nor can the usual excuse of “he who wants to kill kills anyway” work; because the last argument is exactly a strong argument for the justice of depriving him of his own life, once not even the threat of taking his life was inducement to not take the life of another.
This paragraph (but see below) also does not address the matter of justice, instead analysing the institute of the death penalty from the point of view of its usefulness. What is just and what is useful are not necessarily correlated. If you have any sense of justice at all, you must recognise that practical considerations may have a place, but they must most certainly not be what shapes whether justice is administered. The Church has always said that the capital punishment satisfied a need for human justice, not merely for practicality. The implied argument that the Church accepts the death penalty inasmuch as the execution of an offender is an absolute necessity is pure hogwash. It is a deification of life to think that just punishment should not extend to taking one’s life. It is also a thinking that has always been foreign to the generations before V II.
As so often, V II gives you the truth before taking the pickaxe. Look at the preceding paragraph, 2266. Emphases mine.
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
See? It’s all there! 1) “Punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense”. 2) Punishment as re-establishment of justice, not practical remedy. 3) Punishment as a help to the criminal to change his ways. It’s so simple, really.
Thirdly, and most importantly today, those creepy, utterly disquieting creatures of V II, the “new man” and the “new world”, rear their ugly heads.
Jails have always been very safe. Chain a murderer to the wall and you will see he will find his ability to murder again somewhat limited. Leave him in a dark cell and with a priest at hand and you will see there isn’t much more that can be done to move him to repentance. Let him see his own scaffold and you will, in fact, help him to final repentance like he never was in his life. What a blessing, such a scaffold, compared to the destiny of countless atheists of today’s stupid world, surprised by death without a second thought about their own immortal soul!
All this is happily ignored in JP II’s catechism. The argument is defended for the sake of orthodoxy, but it is immediately thereafter undermined with the usual excuse: “today it is different”. This argument can be used to go against capital punishment, ban on communion for adulterers, opposition to sodomy, literally everything.
If today is different, Jesus is obsolete. If the motives and passions, the impulses and the desires, the entire sphere of human emotions is different today than it was yesterday there is no saying to what extent Jesus’ teaching still applies, and at that point you will soon find yourself blabbering nonsense about the “god of surprises” (small “g”. The God of the Christians has, obviously, no surprises).
There is no new man. There is no new reality. Redemption is open to every criminal now as it always was, as it will always be. Sinfulness and concupiscence lead men to horrible deeds now as they always did in the past and always will in the future. Faced with the reality of sin, man must recognise that he is as naked as Adam was, just as sinful, and thinking in exactly the same way. Nothing has changed in the dynamic of sin and offence, and as a result nothing must change in the dynamic of the reaction to them.
It is madness, and an arrogant madness at that, to think that any presumed “advancement” in, say, social worker’s rehabilitation techniques may add a iota to what the Church has always prescribed: prayer and repentance, fast and penance, contrition and expiation. On the contrary, it is typical of the madness of our times to think that the social worker, not the priest, may be the spark that ignites in the criminal the desire for a better life (if not condemned to death) or the desire to die at peace with God and his fellow men (if condemned to death). In both cases, the underlying thinking is either that a man today is different than the man of yesterday, or that we have… improved on Jesus in the way of dealing with his “wrong choices”.
This is the thinking of a Communist, or of a Communard. It is not the thinking of a Christian. A Christian knows that there is no new man, and as a result there can be no new recipes.
Why, then, all this modern excitement about the oh so inhuman “cruelty” of the death penalty, so cruelly endorsed by the Church these past sixty generations?
Because of fear of death, and lack of faith.
To those who do not believe in a life after death, life must truly be the most precious thing of all. Many of them would, for sure, gladly live in slavery than die free, because if they die free they have lost everything anyway. If, therefore, life is the highest good, there can be no crime that justifies the taking of it (unless it is the one of the aborted child, of course; but that doesn’t count for the atheist, because it’s convenient not to count it; and the poor baby has not even committed a crime…).
Something not very dissimilar goes on, I am sure, in the mind of the very many “I hope there is a God” rosewater faithful, whose faith is very “joyful” in words but very shaky in practice. They will say to you that they believe in eternal life, but their speaking of this earthly existence as something so incomparable and priceless will belie their very assertion. You see that mainly in their argument: “oh yes, in principle I am in favour; but what if there is a mistake?“. Again, you see here V II at work, with the pickaxe never far away.
What is truly unique and infinitely worthy in man is not his life, but his soul. God disposes of the life as he wishes, and everyone of us can be dispatched away from this vale of tears in no time when He has decreed that the time has come; but our soul, our soul will never die. It is, therefore, ultimately, nothing earth-shattering if yours truly were to be, one day, executed because of a judicial mistake. He gladly accepts the risk as the most irrelevant of the life risks. Just tell me where to sign.
The probability of yours truly to die because of a judicial mistake is so unbelievably tiny that it never ceases to amaze me that those who want to abolish the death penalty never ask for the abolition of trains, aeroplanes, cars and, most importantly, domestic stairs; all of them infinitely more dangerous than even an inefficient justice system. It just does not make sense. The figures are just not there. But no, let us obsess about the judicial mistake. It lets us feel good, and it assuages our lingering fear of death.
It’s the fear of your own death that makes you so attached to life. It is no other. In times of stronger faith this attachment was non existent. In times of little faith, life is promoted to Most Sacred Thing On Earth.
Think of your soul instead; and if you really want to focus on life, reflect that you could die the next time you go downstairs.
It puts things in perspective. Far more useful than obsessing about the tiny probability of a judicial mistake.
Reblog of the day
I do not know you, but I think that the shallowness of this Pope is getting seriously embarrassing. This, if we charitably assume that the Pope is being merely unintentionally shallow rather than wilfully disingenuous. As one tries to be charitable particularly concerning the Holy Father, I suggest we assume the first, but never become blind to the possibility of the second.
“Nessuno deve uccidere in nome di Dio” and “anche soltanto dirlo e’ una bestemmia”, the Pope has declared in one of his rather spontaneous sermons. Now, in Italian “uccidere” is in common parlance used both for killing and for murder, and the context tells you which is which, though if you mean “murder” you may well use unambiguous words like “assassinare”.
Therefore, the words of the Pope can be interpreted in an orthodox way (“no one can commit a murder in the name of God, and even to say so is blasphemy”; I certainly can’t hack a man to pieces with a meat cleaver in the name of God), but can also be understood in the “spirit of V II”, pacifist way of “no one can wage war in the name of God, and even to say so is a blasphemy”; negative implications for the capital punishment can be drawn in exactly the same way.
Now, has the Pope said countless saints of the past (think of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the real engine beside the promotion of the Second Crusade; or even Saint Francis, another great friend of the Crusades, to mention just two) were blasphemous, together with all those men who risked or gave their life in battle for Christ? No, he didn’t say so and, if confronted with the thoughtless shallowness of his own words, he would certainly deny it.
Still, this is the way everyone who so desires will be able to understand the Pope’s words, and there is no denying the constant desire for popularity coming from the Vatican media outlets took care that this is the case.
Now, whenever the Pope makes such affirmations we are not given the full text of the homily, possibly because of the inordinate rambling therein contained; but as the Pope allows this to happen, and allows the Vatican Radio to publish the “convenient” and “savoury” snippets of his sermons, he must be held responsible for the consequences of their posturing and cheap marketing.
Therefore, either the Pope knows better, but wilfully sows these kindergarten banalities in order to become popular among the ignorant and the stupid (we do not want to think that, if we can); or, more probably and more charitably, he is a man of such little depth that whenever he talks in public he utters every thought that comes to his mind without reflecting on the implications, and without any concern for the way his words will be interpreted; what this also tells us about his well-publicised humility, I will leave it for you to decide.
This Pope has been compared to a country priest. Frankly, I think we have the right to expect better than that from a country priest, too; but at least the country priest doesn’t have the Vatican Radio website to divulge urbi et orbi whatever is produced by his “streams of consciousness”.
My suggestion is that the Vatican Radio website either ignores the Pope’s homily or publishes them in their entirety. But the best solution would be that the Holy Father starts to understand what his role entails and to read homilies carefully prepared (possibly not by him, or reviewed by a sound theologian) beforehand, so that both theological nonsense and ambiguities are avoided.
This Papacy is becoming a kindergarten. The Pope seems not displeased.
Two men sit in a car around 2pm in a busy street in London, near the Woolwich Barracks. They wait for someone to come out. When this happens, they knock him down with the car, with a violence showed by the damage to the vehicle as it ends against a post.
The two get out of the car and start to, literally, butcher the man alive, insulting him and shouting Islamic slogans. They are armed with a least a big knife and a meat cleaver (yes, a meat cleaver), apparently also with a machete that I have not seen in any video.
After the murder they remain there, shouting, inviting people to get near, and take photos and videos. The man with the meat cleaver, his arm and hands covered in blood, rants his Islamic slogans. They are clearly waiting for the armed police to arrive and probably shoot them. After an astonishingly long 20 minutes the armed police is there, and punctually takes both of them down. One is gravely wounded, and is transported with a helicopter to an hospital to (oh, the irony…) save his life.
Not even the stupidest, most brainwashed liberal out there can have any doubt these people were compos mentis, and will be convicted as surely as the “amen” in the church.
In saner times, they would have been condemned to death. In a case like this – an obviously premeditated murder, and a brutally cruel one at that, against a man targeted purely for being a soldier – the capital punishment is not only the expression of an elementary sense of justice, but is also very useful for the murderers, as the approaching of the punishment for their deed helps them to repent and die at peace with at least their god, hoping the real one considers it sufficient to avoid hell. They say – and I do believe – that the approaching of death concentrates the mind beautifully.
This was also what happened in, say, the Papal States. Justice required foul murders to be paid with one's life, and charity provided spiritual assistance to the very end. Who knows how many have (obviously helped by God's grace) managed to achieve a happy death at the gallows, who might otherwise not have been achieved.
Not in these disgraceful times, though. You can butcher a man you have never seen with a meat clever, and an army of social workers will be busy on you for the decades to come, the prospect of freedom one day a distant, but not unrealistic one. The social workers will, in fact, do all they can to avoid realising you are just evil; you must be mad, or at least reformable if enough employment opportunities for the likes of them (not you; them) is given.
Modern society is so scared with death that it does not want to contemplate it, not even for evil bastards like these two. The country simply removes the reality of death from its radar screen for as long as it gets. Life (all life; even the foxes' or the badgers') is one of the sacred cows of our godless societies.
Let us congratulate, then, the two bastards; who after having butchered a man alive have now the perspective of a long life, all expenses courtesy of the stupid taxpayer, whilst feeling like heroes.
I have found here some interesting quotations about the Death Penalty. Please refrain from commenting about the site.
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
St. Thomas Aquinas
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)
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)
The first Pope to take a stand in favor of the death penalty was Innocent I in the year 405. In response to a query from the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent I based his position on Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
He wrote: It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
(Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum,
20 February 405, PL 20,495)
The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.(Innocent III, DS 795/425)
Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology
of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)
Catechism of the Council of Trent
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 [Thy shall 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).
The Vatican spokesman has an obvious desire to feel beautiful and to let all the world see that he is.
In doing so, he
1) goes against 2000 years of Catholic teaching, and
2) contributes to the nonsense about the new and “improved humanity” so typical of the “Spirit of V-II” crowd.
Father Lombardi is not very shy. He tells us what he wants. Being Italian, he must know that the word “want” is more emotionally charged in Italian than in, say, English.
In Italy it is considered rather aggressive and in real life you do not use such words among adults because of his strong content. Even in Republican times, every child is taught that “l’erba voglio non cresce nemmeno nel giardino del Re” (or: “The “I Will”-grass doesn’t even grow in the King’s garden”).
But no, Father Lombardi doesn’t care of Catholic teaching or of “I Will”-grass. He simply wants. “Beata gioventu’ “, one would say if the chap were young and naively revolutionary. But he isn’t, so one doesn’t.
We have two phenomena here: the proclamation of “Humanity2.0″, obviously improved from the 1.0 version, and the reaction with the installation of Catholicism 2.0.
“I don’t want it in any country, in any of its forms, for any person or in any circumstance”, says our chap openly insulting the million of devout Catholics, certainly more orthodox than he himself is, at a stroke. But it is not only a matter of being rude.
This is in open contrast with the Church Teaching, the equivalent of telling oneself a pacifist in relation to the doctrine of war. This is in obvious contrast with centuries of tradition not only in all (as in: all) Christian countries, but even in the Pontifical State, who had and applied the death penalty with regularity. This was also, until 2000, official rule of the Vatican City, until an obviously senile JP II (desirous to make himself beautiful, no doubt) decided to abolish it.
Still, JP II’s decision might have had (though obviously wrong, because obviously sending the wrong signal) a practical justification. The Vatican City is rather not what you’d call a hotbed of criminality and when they renounced to exercise jurisdiction in the only case where it would have found application (Ali Agca, of course) it was obvious that the rule was meant never to be applied in practice anyway.
But this with Fr. Lombardi is different. This is at variance with the teaching of the Church. Lombardi calls this “a step further”. With this mentality, priestesses are “a step further” compared to male priesthood.
This nonsense comes from the usual mentality of the Sixties, that humanity be now oh so improved. Methinks, it is the same mentality which “helped” the one or other bishop to consider depraved priests as merely having a need for psychological treatment.
Already the CCC on the matter is extremely questionable, because – even without being openly heretical – it flirts with heresy to please the crowds (in pure JP II-style, must be said). But this is truly senseless.
And the man is not even King.
The address to which to send your protest is, as usual: