[Catholic Caucus] Death Penalty dust-up has neo-cons thrice disturbed

The Bergoglian twist on capital punishment appears to have rattled the neo-conservative cage like nothing else has over these last sixty-four months of modernist mayhem. Some, it seems, are coming to terms with the cold hard reality that Francis (as he wishes to be known) is most certainly a heretic; so much so that some are even willing to say so aloud.

It is a rude awakening indeed for these folks; the same that have been ever so careful to avoid the “H” word when speaking of Amoris Laetitia; a text that didn’t seem to disturb their peace nearly as much as this dust-up over the death penalty has.

One wonders: what is it about the present case that has the neo-cons so hyper-agitated?

The answer, it seems, is that Bergoglio has managed to attack no less than three neo-conservative sacred cows in one fell swoop, and guess what – the death penalty itself isn’t one of them.

The first of these sacred cows is the 1994 Catechism of Catholic Church (CCC) wherein Francis’ latest departure from Catholic tradition will be “officially” published. This is a compendium that many conservatives consider to be an unassailable presentation of authentic Catholic doctrine; one of quasi-biblical stature.

Writing in the book, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which he co-authored with Cardinal Schoenborn, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole.

Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church.

Beyond question! This is a sinister (nay, diabolical) inversion of the Biblical warning concerning a little leaven.

In Ratzinger’s view, if one rejects the CCC as a whole (as one must in light of those parts that are poisonous), then it is to be assumed that one likewise rejects the entire faith of the Church and is, therefore, no longer Catholic!

So, in the neo-con mind: Compromise the purity of the CCC, you sully the “faith.”

Adding insult to injury, however, is the fact that the CCC was promulgated by yet another of their sacred cows – their Santo dei tutti Santi – John Paul the Great Ecumenist, who introduced the work thus:

I acknowledge it [the CCC] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith. (Apostolic Constitution, Fidei depositum, 1994)

You see, their unbridled esteem for Wojtyla is what initially led (and continues to lead) them to believe that the CCC is an authoritative guide that cannot possibly contain error. Now that he has been “canonized” (better understood as having received the Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award for Service to the Revolution), the CCC has taken on a sacred character; a sort of Wojtylan relic.

So, in the neo-con mind: Compromise the purity of the CCC, you sully not only the “faith,” but also the legacy of the Great One.

If that’s not bad enough, the Bergoglian treatment of the death penalty has the neo-cons thrice disturbed because the CCC, in the words of John Paul II, “is the most mature and complete fruit of the Council’s teaching and presents it in the rich framework of the whole of ecclesial Tradition.”

So, in the neo-con mind: Compromise the purity of the CCC, you sully not only the “faith” and the legacy of the Great One, but also the Almighty Council!

And this, my friends, is why some of the neo-cons are so up in arms over the Bergoglian twist on capital punishment.

The Bergoglian twist on capital punishment appears to have rattled the neo-conservative cage like nothing else has over these last sixty-four months

uhh...did the writer somehow miss Trump's election?

What a snide little Louie Verrecchio! Next time, he should try making doctrinal arguments rather than taking cheap pot shots at someone who obtained the Divine grace of a miraculous cure by his intercession for a nun.

Emotional diatribes look just as ugly from the right as they do from the left. Louie could have pointed out that the Church has always taught that the death penalty is valid. He could have mentioned that by extension, wiping out the death penalty with Francis' rationale also eliminates the right of self-defense and the doctrine of the just war. (Talk about your unintended consequences!) But no, Louie would have had to make his brain work too hard, and so he decided to try to win a battle of some sort by just acting ugly.

So, meditating on the Transfiguration is tampering with the Rosary. Meditating on the Wedding Feast at Cana where Our Blessed Mother first said to the stewards, and has said to her children for the last 2,000 years, “Do whatever He tells you,” is also tampering with the Rosary.

A history of the Rosary shows that it was the result of “tampering” with the Liturgy of the Hours.

The Twenty Mysteries of the Rosary?

Father Richard John Neuhaus from First Things magazine found these early reports hard to believe, and told The Chicago Tribune that the Pope was not likely to alter the Rosary. "That he would suggest," said Neuhaus "or even declare some kind of official change to the Rosary is totally atypical, totally out of character." Neuhaus then said that the Pope does not have the authority to mandate changes in such a prayer.¹

Father Neuhaus is correct that a Pope cannot mandate such changes, but he is mistaken to claim that the Pope's change of the Rosary would be "out of character" for this Pontiff of post-Conciliar aggiornamento. Even the secular press recognizes John Paul II as a man with a passion for setting papal precedents.

The prayers of the Rosary are the same, the only thing that's changed is that there are 5 additional mysteries put forth for consideration, which one can pray or not. Weekly Mass attendance is an obligation, but the Rosary is an elective prayer. One can say it every day, once a week, one decade, five decades, 20 decades, or not at all.

I honestly and truly do not believe if one prays with love and devotion that Mother Mary will be displeased because one adds the 5 decades that St. JPII “thought of” rather than sticking with the 15 decades she unveiled.

Should we add the Fatima prayer after each decade? At one time *that* was an innovation. Just a thought.

The Fatima prayer was not introduced to us until 1917, and it was revealed by Our Lady Herself.

I really don’t care about what “rosary” or what “prayers” you choose to say.

What do you think about JP II adding a 15th station to the Stations of the Cross?

Did you read the complete article I linked for you? JP II was the first pope to do or say many other things that are questionable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.