Correcting the Heretic Pope named Francis and His Papolater Apologists

From a priest friend in Canada; Fr. PMJMcD

Death penalty and catechism of the Catholic Church

" Thou shalt not kill‎ ‎" does not concern Society, but the individual man. The doctrine of the Church has never condemned the death sentence when it comes to society protecting itself. It is even for her a DUTY , a charity (read Liberalism is a sin of Don Sarda y Salvany). The catechism of the Catholic Church, published by John Paul II in the original French version of 1992, still indicates this in article 2266 :

"Preserving the common good of society requires the incapacitation of the aggressor, and as such, the traditional teaching of the Church has recognized the validity of the law and the DUTY of public authority. It is legitimate to punish by penalties suited to the gravity of the offense, without excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty ... The penalty has the first effect of compensating for the disorder introduced by the fault. voluntarily accepted by the culprit, it has the value of atonement , the sentence also has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of the person.Finally, the sentence has medicinal value, it must, as far as possible, contribute to the amendment of the culprit. "(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pocket MAME / PLON Edition, Manchecourt 1992, article 2266, pp. 564).

Don Sarda y Salvany, Doctor of Theology, Priest of the Diocese of Barcelona and director of the newspaper "La Revista popular", in his book Liberalism is a sin (1887) specifies the Catholic doctrine on the subject of charity:

"Catholic theology gives us the definition by the most authorized body, ..., the catechism, so full of wisdom and philosophy.This definition, here it is:Charity is a supernatural virtue that inclines us to love God above all things and the neighbor as ourselves for the love of God ... To love is to want the good to the one we love ... It follows from that we can love the neighbour, well and much, by displeasing him, by annoying him, by causing him a material injury and even on certain occasions by depriving him of life. Everything is summed up, in short, to examine whether, in the event that one displeases him, where we oppose him, humiliate him, do it, yes or no, for his own good, (1) for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his own (2), or simply for the most great service of God (3).

1) For his good . If it is shown that by displeasing the neighbor, by offending him, one acts for his good, it is evident that one loves him, even in the annoyances and disgusts imposed on him. for example :

We love the patient by burning him with the cautery or by cutting off his gangrenous limb; we love the wicked by correcting him by repression or punishment, etc., etc. All this is charity, and perfect charity.

2) For the sake of another whose rights are superior . It is often necessary to displease a person, not for his own good, but to deliver others from the harm it causes him. It is then an OBLIGATION of charity to defend the attacked against the unjust violence of the aggressor; and the aggressor can be done as much harm as the defense of the attacker demands. This is what happens when a robber is killed by a traveler. In this case, to kill the unjust aggressor, to wound him, to reduce him in any other way to impotence, is to act as a true charity.

3) For the service due to God . ... Just as in a just war men hurt themselves and kill each other for the service of the Fatherland, so they can hurt themselves and kill each other for the service of God. In the same way that, in accordance with the law, it is possible to execute men because of their offenses against the human code, we have the right, in a Catholic society, to do justice to men guilty of offenses against the divine code. in those of his compulsory articles in the external forum. ...

Modern liberalism does not understand it that way, which is why it is wrong.... By his apostrophes and his banal accusations of intolerance and uncompromising intransigence, he disconcerts even very firm Catholics. Our formula is very clear and concrete. Here it is: the sovereign Catholic intransigence is none other than the sovereign, charitable charity .This charity is exercised relative to the neighbor, when, in her own interest, she confounds, humiliates, offends and chastises her neighbour...

And because today there are few true hardliners, there are also few truly charitable people. Liberal charity, fashionable at present, is condescending, affectionate, tender even in form, but at bottom it is only the essential contempt of the real goods of man, the supreme interests of truth and of God. "(Don Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin).