Today, Attorney General William Barr announced that he was reversing a moratorium on the federal death penalty. This decision is gravely injurious to the common good, as it effaces the God-given dignity of all human beings, even those who have committed terrible crimes.
— Cardinal Cupich (@CardinalBCupich) July 25, 2019
Go check out the whole thread, HERE. There are other riveting arguments, such as, “But but but Saint Francis de Buenos Aires just changed the Catechism, so this is not allowed any more.” He’s really got his panties in a wad, and it’s a sight to behold. Can I get an amen?
Oh, his name is pronounced “Soopitch,” or if you are a lisping acolyte, “Thoopitch.”
It isn’t a difficult concept: The Death Penalty is a requirement of Justice to the CRIMINAL, who is not to be denied this in fairness to him, and for the benefit of his repentance, reparation, and hopefully attaining the Beatific Vision in the end. There can be no harm to his “human dignity,” when his supernatural end is the focus. The only way this becomes hard to understand is if you deny the supernatural, Heaven, Hell, etc.
Reblogging some stuff:
Remember…“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”
——————————————–
It would be INSANE to suggest a valid pontiff could reverse 2000 years of doctrine, AMIRIGHT?
You know how someone should have told Luther that you can’t just rip out the parts of the bible you don’t like, and you can’t change the verses to better suit your liking? Well, someone should have told the Argentinian the same thing about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because not only did he change it, but now he has driven a stake through it.
Conveniently, Diane Montagna has put together a powerhouse follow-up to her initial reportage yesterday of the Bergoglian Faux Mercy Machine on the Death Penalty HERE. Thank God for the work she is doing at LifeSite, since the general media blackout otherwise continues unabated. Her piece is a must read.
She first captures commentary by Edward Feser, and then she brings in an anonymous theologian: Dominican vs Argentinian in a steel cage death match. It’s a rather lopsided battle. Next up is a Catholic historian, Dr. Alan Fimister, who ends the scene by quoting the great Elizabeth Anscombe. Turns out Anscombe vs Argentinian is pretty decisive as well.
God is immutable. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is immutable. It’s not that difficult a concept. When true popes teach, they document their orthodoxy by generously footnoting key points with references to Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, and past popes. A true pope goes out of his way to point out, “Hey, this isn’t new.” Go to vatican.va and pull up any document from any past pope. You will quickly see, this is how it’s done.
What can one say about a “Bishop of Rome” who claims the One True Faith was wrong – long on justice and short on mercy, with an immature conscience – from 33 A.D. to 2013 A.D. How could he contradict scripture, Tradition, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all of his “predecessors’? How can he deliberately misquote Aquinas (as he did in Amoris Laetitia as well) in trying to get support for his utterly novel teaching (which a scholar of ten years old can discover in ten seconds that Aquinas teaches exactly the opposite, and he does it in Articles 2-3 of the very same Question 64 that the Argentinian cites HERE.)
Imagine how profoundly UNPROTECTED one must be from the supernatural graces our Lord and Savior promised to Peter and his successors, to wake up one morning and decide to take on Saint Thomas Aquinas and invert his teachings. Imagine then GETTING AWAY WITH IT, cue the accompanying endorphin rush, BECAUSE SILENCE.
Oh yes, BTW he is still Argentinian, you know. Renewed his Argentinian passport, even though he’s the purported Head of State of a different sovereign entity. It’s almost like a sign, or something. He also doesn’t live where popes live. He also doesn’t wear what popes wear. He also doesn’t give the apostolic blessing like popes do. He also likes to be called bishop, not pope. Nothing to see here.
———————————————————————–
“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”
The death penalty is not unjust, it is just. It is not unmerciful, it is merciful. It is a means of repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. It forces the penitent (that’s why it’s called a ‘penitentiary’) to reflect more deeply on his sins as his time draws near, and hopefully experience a conversion. Justice demands this. Failing to dispense proportional punishment for a criminal act, is itself a criminal act. But for someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, doesn’t believe in the eternal life of the soul, none of this makes sense.
Anyway, I’m short on time, and Ann has already put up a bunch of proofs from Doctors or the Church and others. The title quote is from the brilliant John Senior, whom I’ve quoted many times on this site. Read it all HERE.
I am of two minds on the matter, and perhaps in expressing this I will reveal my ignorance. I invite correction, please!
On the one hand: I agree with you, that the death penalty must be legal, at a minimum, in order to create the moral hazard of the fear of Death. The harshest punishments exist to deter the most brutal criminals, and those would-be criminals who fear said harsh punishment. If we take that off the table, a criminal knows that they will get, at most, a life sentence to the confines of a prison. Purgatory is preferable to Hell, when Hell would be Just punishment. Likewise, the possibility of Death, as you say, invites repentance and hopefully saves a few souls prior to their untimely demise.
On the other hand: The Death Penalty must be a scarce punishment, used limitedly–perhaps so limitedly as to be effectively unused. Human life should not be taken lightly, even for criminals. It should be a situation where there is no doubt whatsoever. The worst tragedy would be to learn that someone was wrongly put to death.
So that leaves me here: If we take the Death Penalty off the table, we lose a deterrence factor for Crime and a repentance factor for criminals. If we keep it on the table, we must take extraordinary care to ensure that it is used for justice, and as such should be limited.
In fact, removing the death penalty may even be seen as not merciful, given the horrible state of our prison system, and the torture that some inmates endure at each others hands.
I’m not sure our current system is sufficiently limited; I’m not certain it’s Just to go without it. I’m having a hard time reconciling these competing forces. I’m certain I am muddling things because I am bringing outside information to what God has already given us, but at the same time I would like to understand so I might have a strong and unequivocal answer. I will read Ann’s resources thoroughly.
It is not unreasonable to have some qualms about how the DP is carried out in particular societies, but to be fair, our system (US) does go to pretty extensive lengths to make sure it is done justly. That’s not to say it’s perfect (this side of eternity, it never will be), or that there isn’t room for improvement. But it is certainly valid to have DP as the resources argue. The DP is one of the clearer examples where there is high risk the perfect can become the enemy of the good.
Well said. Perhaps my squeamishness is (and should be) natural when considering ending a human life. I will pray for Justice, but I think you hit it on the head: The perfect can be the enemy of the good.
Christ said it was better that the one who caused the scandal would receive the death penalty rather than give his brother the death of his soul. In Scripture God dictates the eternal Death Penalty sentence for the false prophet and his followers.
Story goes that pronunciation of his excellency’s name among close confreres, is Seepage.
Oh my.
It is not that the punishment is unjust (we should not edit the CCC to take it away) but our application as citizens misses the mark. There have been more than a few innocent people executed at the hands of the state that better investigations may have cleared. How do we square the two ideas of just punishment and sloppy investigating not to mention coerced testimonies, it must be scarce as another commentator said. I find many Catholics can be a bit pollyanna-ish when it comes to these things. Police are always just, bishops never lie, etc. You must remember the fallen nature of this world and adjust your sights accordingly.
Yet even an innocent victim of an injustice can use his own suffering to achieve eternal glory. It’s the very purpose for which God permits suffering, for all of us.
That’s absolutely true. However I must have far less faith, I would not want to be in the situation and I’m guessing you wouldn’t either nor would I want anyone else innocent of crime to face it and would rather argue on that angle. We could always ask Cardinal Pell whose case is looking more and more like a sham. I for one would rather have him free if he’s innocent. The compromise must be that we have better investigation.
Y’all are so lost. What nonsense. You don’t even know your own doctrine, your own papal bulls or dogmatic councils. Anyone with any sober-minded awareness of the many changes and innovations made by popes through the centuries has already left your sect for Holy Orthodoxy, the True Faith. The others are in the process of leaving, and are not to be found on this blog, nor anywhere near hysterical, ALL CAPS yelling and screaming Ann Barnhardt. There is no one. No one left who is still sane or intellectually serious or sober-minded in your sect. Look around, you’re intellectual midwits ignoring the obvious facts of history and theology. While thinking you and Ms Barnhardt are the cleverest kids in town.
I approve this comment so that the other “midwits” on this site might offer further insight.
Not sure what there is to add. Everything we need to know is right there. No, not about anything useful or important. But about who he is and what he thinks. Pride cometh before the fall.
St. Paul, who persecuted the faith before becoming it’s great Evangelist, pray for us.
The devil’s advocate is an extremely useful tool for midwits such as myself. Care to elaborate pelayo? Where exactly are Mark (and Ann) wrong in this piece?
I would believe pelayo on Orthodoxy if it weren’t for two glaring errors where they completely ignore God’s own words:
1. You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (including giving the keys to bind and loose); and
2. What God has joined, let no man tear asunder (the Ortho practice of “marriage” – don’t see anywhere Jesus authorizing Marriage Mulligans)
I suppose if you ignore those yuuuuuuuuuuuge elephants, Orthodoxy is Ok (they do have pretty buildings).
Blaire Cupich or “Blazing Cupcake”…?
Barnhardt is right. She said it first, I am just repeating it…. Romanists = effeminates.
Please read the following: https://fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html