| Home >> Lost Sermons

Two "Jesuits" Condemn The Catholic Church To The Death Penalty

The Pope said Catholicism was a big joke, so let's have fun!
The "Pope" said Catholicism was a big joke,
so let's have fun!

1) Introduction

A few days ago, two "Jesuits" (Luis Francisco Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, known under the name of "Pope Francis") attempted to change the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the "CCC") concerning the death penalty, claiming insistently it is now "inadmissible/inhuman".

Most people seem to think this change is a very good idea. A few are pulling their hair out and screaming blue murder (including me). In this somewhat long and dry article (sorry), I will attempt to explain why I'm pulling my hair out. I think your Eternal Salvation could very well depend on carefully reading and understanding what follows.

First, I'll try to make you realize just how important this whole kerfuffle is. Second, like trying to show water to a fish, I'll try to show you what intellectual atmosphere you're swimming in, more or less consciously. Third, I'll try to point out some of the self-contradictions of these "Jesuits". Fourth, we'll try to read a bit of Aquinas on the topic. Finally I'll conclude, so after you can get milk and cookies because you've been such a good boy/girl.

2) Is God a clown with bees in his underpants?

A clown holding a gun to his own head.

Let's start by forgetting everything about this death penalty stuff. Clear your minds! Forget about being against or in favor of capital punishment. Let's think instead about a common sense principle.

As I've said elsewhere, there is a big difference between a church that claims to be founded and guided by God, and anything else. A committee can make mistakes, a parliament can change its mind, a supreme court can observe that social circumstances have changed.

The Catholic Church has always made claims that are as clear as they are decisive, like She is an expert in Humanity, and that Her interpretation of Morality is infallible, etc.

If you claim that the Supreme Being, endowed with all perfections at an infinite degree, including the perfections of Wisdom and Justice and Knowledge, has decided to communicate with you, then you are going to look like a clown if your "god" later on says "Whopsee, I made a big boo-boo! I need to flip-flop on the official teachings of My Church!"

3) Why does the death penalty taste so bad to modern taste buds?

A baby tastes a lemon.

Those two Jesuits did not randomly decide to start with the death penalty. If they had tried to pick an "unripe fruit", like trying to reverse the teachings of the Church about rape or child pornography, people would have revolted. No, they chose a "ripe fruit", a topic that has been so bombarded with Leftist propaganda, that most people feel positive emotions when they hear of their attempt.

Most modern Catholics, for example, have rarely heard quotes of Jesus talking about the Eternal Fires of Hell, and how easy it is to go to Hell, and how many people end up in Hell. On the contrary, they've heard so many sirupy and high-fructose lies, that their ears now have Auditory Type II Diabetes. Many even believe Hell doesn't exist, or that it's empty.

Think about it: compared to Hell, the death penalty is like a quiet stroll in a beautiful park, with the birds singing and the squirrels running around. If going to Hell is impossible, then the death penalty can be "inadmissible/inhuman". But if God really does condemn many people to burn eternally in Hell, and justly so, then the death penalty becomes palatable.

Another current moral disease is the Leftist attack on anything related to guilt. Nobody is guilty anymore. Drug addicts should be given free hypodermic needles, Muslim terrorists just have mental illnesses, children who severely misbehave should not be spanked, prostitutes are just "sex-trade workers", etc. Guilt requires freedom and responsibility. If nobody is responsible for their actions anymore, there can be no real guilt. And without guilt, how could anybody deserve a punishment, let along capital punishment?

4) Do these two "Jesuits" even make sense?

Calvin contradicts himself.

If you are familiar with the teachings of the Church and current events surrounding "Pope" Francis, this whole affair is full of contradictions.

First, as the excellent Father Hunwicke says, these two "Jesuits" did not declare the death penalty to now be a "malum intrinsecum"! That alone is a ridiculous Bergoglian self-contradiction. (Quick reminder: Bergoglio in Amoris Laetitia claims that no act can be intrinsically evil, that depending on circumstances, even adultery for example could be acceptable, whereas in his newfangled catechism he claims the death penalty is "inadmissible/inhuman", whatever the circumstances!)

Second, Bergoglio tried to change paragraph 2267, but forgot about the one a few paragraphs before (2260) which clearly states:

"If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made."
[CCC, #2260, my emphasis]

Third, as an excellent writer like Edward Feser has explained in several articles (here and here), the position of the Catholic Church (which has been in favor of the death penalty for two thousand years), is scattered throughout the Bible (both in the Old and the New Testament), the Roman Catechism (which is still valid), numerous official documents of the Magisterium, and the writings of canonized Saints and Doctors of the Church. Trying to change something by fiddling with one paragraph of the CCC, is like a heavily indebted man trying to solve his financial problems by putting some "liquid paper" on his computer screen while viewing his negative bank account balance on the Internet.

5) What does Saint Thomas Aquinas say about this?

Saint Thomas Aquinas praying before starting his intellectual labor.

OK, stop reading, take a bathroom break, and go get yourself a piping hot cup of coffee. Then come back here and carefully read these serious articles about the death penalty.

Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Matthew 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.

Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezekiel 33:11, "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.

Objection 3. Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and "we wish our friends to live and to exist," according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away.

Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Proverbs 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).

[Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae q. 64 a. 2, English, Latin]

That it is lawful for judges to inflict punishments


[8] They also allege that so long as a man is existing in this world he can be changed for the better. So, he should not be removed from the world by execution, but kept for punishment.

[9] Now, these arguments are frivolous. Indeed, in the law which says «You shall not kill» there is the later statement: «You shall not allow wrongdoers to live» (Exod. 22: 18). From this we are given to understand that the unjust execution of men is prohibited. This is also apparent from the Lord's words in Matthew 5. For, after He said: «You have heard that it was said to them of old: You shall not kill» (Mat. 5:21), He added: «But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother,» etc. From this He makes us understand that the killing which results from anger is prohibited, but not that which stems from a zeal for justice. Moreover, how the Lord's statement, «Let both grow until the harvest,» should be understood is apparent through what follows: «lest perhaps, gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it» (Mat. 13: 29). So, the execution of the wicked is forbidden wherever cannot be done without danger to the good. Of course, this often happens when the wicked are not clearly distinguished from the good by their sins, or when the danger of the evil involving many good men in their ruin is feared.

[10] Finally, the fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact 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 the critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.

[Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, chapter 146, English, Latin]

6) Conclusion

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Louis F. Ladaria: Two Jesuits enjoying the destruction of Catholicism.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Louis F. Ladaria:
Two "Jesuits" enjoying the destruction of Catholicism.

Journalism students are taught "Cui bono", "who will gain from this"? Who will gain from all this confusion in the CCC? Who wants to make men believe that sin doesn't exist anymore, that the doors of Hell are locked and the key thrown away, that guilt and punishment are obsolete, that the Catholic Church has teachings that are true one day, and false the next?


Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Louis F. Ladaria are trying to condemn the Bride of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, to the death penalty.

These two "Jesuit" criminals know what they deserve for being traitors. Traitors deserve the death penalty, so they are just taking measures to protect themselves. That might work here below, for a while. Good luck in the Afterlife.

| Home >> Lost Sermons