Replies

Did he convert?

He worshipped with other Dems at the Church of the Open Taxpayer Checkbook. In the pew next to Satan and Al Sharpton. Crowded place.

"But the pope's new language stops short – notably – of calling capital punishment "intrinsically evil," a "theological term meaning that an action can never be done in a moral way, regardless of the circumstances." The new Catechism entry will neither state that the death penalty would always be immoral in other circumstances nor condemn those who have supported its use in the past."

As a lifelong Catholic who has been teaching from scriptures and the Catechism for decades, I am convinced that doctrine cannot "develop" in such manner as to negate its previous meaning or render it uncertain and obscure.

That is what Pope Francis' revision of the Catechism (Pope John Paul II 1992 edition) did: negate its previous affirmation that a lawful ruler may justly apply the death penalty; and rendered obscure the exact reasons why such application should be vanishingly rare.

Like American Thinker.com columnist T.R. Clancy, I too would vote against the Death Penalty if it were on the ballot in my state. For various reasons, if anyone wants me to list them.

But I think Pope Francis' formulation is a frustrating equivocation. Even the word "inadmissible" is equivocal. Let me give two examples of how it might be taken:

Never permitted: "Marie wanted to enter into evidence a conversation she heard in a dream. The judge ruled that the contents of a dream are always inadmissible."

Prohibited in this instance, but possibly permitted at a different time or in a different way: "Marie wanted to enter into evidence a letter which was in two different handwritings and written in pencil, showing cross-outs and signs of erasure, and signed by herself only, also in pencil. The judge ruled this letter was inadmissible in that form." ... She later came back with a fair copy: typed neatly, signed by herself in ink, and notarized. The judge entered it as evidence."

Pope Francis has implied much, but clarified little. "Lex dubia non obligat,"+ a doubtful law is not binding.

I always wonder why there is a “separation of church and state,” .... until there isn’t.

Since most evidence in criminal prosecutions contains at least the seed of doubt, why are any criminal trials admissible?

Isn’t Andrew pro abortion?

That’s right, he is.

5.56mm