Skip to main content

Francis Joke: Death Penalty is Intrinsically Evil Act even though I Eliminated Intrinsically Evil Acts

This is funny. I'm laughing.

The National Catholic Register's J.D. Flynn, with a straight face, yesterday wrote that the Pope is developing doctrine on the death penalty:

Francis in saying "the death penalty 'is in itself contrary to the Gospel'... evoked the theological concept of 'intrinsically evil acts.'"

Flynn isn't up in the newest development in doctrine.

This week, the Pope's confidant Antonio Spadaro confirmed, what philosopher Josef Seifert said of Amoris Laetitia (303), that Francis has eliminated intrinsically evil acts.

The National Catholic Reporter, on October 6, quotes Spadaro:

"We must conclude that the Pope realizes that one can no longer speak of an abstract category of persons and... praxis of integration in a rule that is absolutely to be followed in every instance."

The Register is behind the times.

Francis eliminated intrinsically evil acts so the death penalty can't be an intrincically evil act.

That is if 2+2 equals 4.




Comments

William Mahrt said…
The question is which point is wrong? Is AL wrong or is the death penalty wrong? More likely AL.
11:02 AM
Fred Martinez said…
Francis's confidant Spadaro, and it appears the Pope, believes 2+2 equals 5. In postmodernist make believe land, they are both right.

In reality, they are both wrong because intrinsically evil acts exist, but the death penalty is not a intrincically evil act.
11:35 AM
Justina said…
But according to themselves, the Bergoglians are always right. If 2 plus 2 can sometimes equal 5, then self-contradiction is perfectly licit. There are no negative precepts of the natural law when Pope Bergoglio says there aren't, but there are when he wants them. Mad Hatter, please call your office!
5:20 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...
6 comments
Read more

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...
3 comments
Read more