Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, and Christopher Ferrara in the same Boat of Stupid

Senior apologist Jimmy Akin over at “Catholic Answers” has attempted to explain away “Pope” Francis’ new catechism change on the death penalty. [1] Akin argues that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. The reason, he gives, is that today’s penal sanctions can protect society without the need for the death penalty, whereas in the past, the Church understood the death penalty as a necessary requirement to protect society.

Akin takes it further and states, “the death penalty could still be justified as a means of protecting society” and “one could understand the death penalty as something that involves ‘an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’ but an attack that could be tolerated or even required in situations where there is no other way to effectively protect society.”

The whole problem here is that the catechism implies the precise opposite to Akin’s argument.

The revision denotes that in the past the dignity of the person was considered lost due to serious crimes which justified the use of capital punishment. However, now “an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes” and “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

The footnote points to Francis’ address in 2017 where he stated that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel” and “is an inhuman measure.” That means the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

In case you missed it, the catechism is saying the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person, but Akin argues that the same quote admits that such an attack is admissible. It can be justified, tolerated, or even required.

Apologist Patrick Madrid (formally of “Catholic Answers”) admits that Francis’ new teaching is contrary to past Church teaching and the death penalty is not an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. Madrid asserts the change is Francis’ “personal pastoral approach” and “pastoral opinion” but no change in doctrine. [2]

If we pay close attention, we can see that the Francis’ catechism revision is implying four things:

1. The Church in the past was wrong for thinking the dignity of the person is lost for serious crimes.
2. The Church was wrong for thinking it was an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes.
3. The Church was ignorant of the fact that the dignity is still present after serious crimes.
4. The Church immorally attacked the inviolability and dignity of the person when such an attack is inadmissible because of the inviolability and dignity of the person.

All four implications are blasphemies against the Church and outright heresies against the Holiness of the Church.

Madrid understands the error of Francis’ teaching but asserts that a pope has the right to make and apply a heretical and blasphemous opinion as a pastoral approach.

Over at the Remnant Newspaper, we have Christopher Ferrara rightly pointing out Francis’ nonsense but then calling his pope’s magisterium “fake.” Well, that’s interesting. We sede’s call Francis’ magisterium fake, too, because Francis isn’t pope. However, Ferrara calls it fake because it’s heretical. [3]

Conclusion

Jimmy Akin twists the very words of “Pope” Francis and his catechism revision to say precisely opposite of their clear meaning.

Patrick Madrid implies that a pope has the right to promulgate a heretical pastoral approach.

Christopher Ferrara thinks his pope’s magisterium is fake with no authority because in Ferrara’s crazy religion, popes can have fake magisteriums and promulgate heresy without losing their office or membership in the Church.

All I can say is, “Stupid, stupid, stupid!”

 

Footnotes

[1] http://jimmyakin.com/2018/08/understanding-the-catechisms-death-penalty-revision.html

[2] http://jimmyakin.com/2018/08/understanding-the-catechisms-death-penalty-revision.html

[3] https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4000-killing-capital-punishment-francis-vs-the-catholic-church#comment-4020553214

Read Full Post »

Open Letter to Jimmy Akin of “Catholic Answers”

Dear Jimmy Akin,

I emailed you a couple of weeks ago and have not heard a reply. Therefore, I’m sending this open email about two of your radio replies plus an article you’ve written.

On Catholic Answer’s Live, March 13, 2013, at roughly around 35:51 into the program, you stated,

“They are a group of people who are very attached to certain expressions of the Catholic Faith that were very common prior to the Second Vatican Council, and are not as common today, they’re still valid expressions of the Catholic faith, but some people have become so attached to them that it’s caused them to actually have refused to embrace or even tolerate the alternative expressions of the Catholic Faith that have become common in the years since the council. And so as a result , they didn’t like how the way things went after the council and that’s something that people can have different opinions with, obviously there have been problems in the Church, but some of them have let that so dominated their thinking they’ve actually gone into a state of schism, they have accused the pope of not really being the pope, that group of people are called sedevacantists…

and they, therefore have severed communion with the pope…

by rejecting communion with those popes they have split themselves from the Church. That’s what schism is. It’s when you refuse communion with the pope, or those who are in communion with them. So if you’re saying, this guy or this group of guys isn’t the real pope, there is no real pope, then you have left communion with the Catholic Church, and that’s a very tragic situation…”

What expressions (pre and post – Vatican 2) are you referring to? What is it precisely that sedevacantists don’t like after the council that so dominated their thinking that Catholics can have differing opinions on? Catholics holding to sedevacantism don’t accept as true popes those who reject dogmas and Divine laws. In other words, the pope must be a Catholic. Mere expressions and opinions are not foundations for sedevacantism. So I would like to know what you meant, since your reply is a misrepresentation of sedevacantism. I’m sure you know that bearing false witness against your neighbors is a mortal sin if your intent was not to explain the truth of our position.

As for your explanation of schism, would you say that St. Vincent Ferrer severed communion with the Catholic Church when he “refused” to be in communion with the Rome line pontiffs? Could “sedevacantists” be considered merely mistaken Catholics rather than schismatics who’ve separated from the Catholic Church? I consider as members of the Catholic Church, Catholics who’ve ignorantly or mistakenly followed the conciliar popes.

Also, on the radio April 4, 2013, a caller asked you how Benedict XVI’s statement that Jews and Catholics worship the same Lord can be reconciled with the fact that Jews reject Christ as God. You said in a roundabout way that Jews in the Old Testament were unaware of the Trinitarian God, but they in fact worshiped God. Therefore, Jews and Muslims can worship the true God though not knowing the Trinitarian God.

Catholic Answers is quick to point out distinctions unless those needed distinctions have a negative effect on the Vatican 2 religion, at which point they are glossed over. Case in point: You fail to make the distinction between merely being ignorant of the Trinitarian God verses actually rejecting the Trinitarian God. Jews and Muslims reject Jesus as God and even blaspheme the Most Holy Trinity. They aren’t ignorant of the Christian faith on this point. I’d like an answer to how one can knowingly reject Christ, reject and blaspheme the Most Holy Trinity and at the same time worship and pray to Him?

This is a major problem because John Paul II and Benedict XVI have made numerous statements about Jews and Muslims worshiping the one true God of Christianity. NA3 of Vatican 2 goes even further: “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect.  They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly,just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God…Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”  

Muslims have a high regard for the moral life, when their religion blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity, practices and promotes polygamy, hypocritically mistreats and sometimes kills their own women, commits suicide for promised sensual pleasure, and who knows what else… seriously?

Apparently, John Paul II was serious about it. In a message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000, he stated “I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture…” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5) We have a supposed pope thanking those who are developing Islamic culture that blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity while misleading literally a billion people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he didn’t stop there. The very next month, March 21, 2000, John Paul II stated, “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2) This is absolutely stunning because John Paul II did not just say, may St. John protect a people, but a false religion that denies the divinity of Christ. How is this not blasphemy?

This reminds me of your latest article about Francis I’s foot-washing a Muslim woman. You imply that Francis I doesn’t have to follow Canon Law because popes can basically grant themselves dispensation. However, Francis I was breaking this law as bishop in South America long before his election in Rome. Therefore, your explanation doesn’t help in his defense. Also, you claim “If the Church can survive altar girls, it can certainly survive a change in the discipline regarding who has their feet washed.” Pope Gelasius called evil the practice of altar girls because the roles “are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.” The Church has forbidden them for 2000 years for good reason. It doesn’t have the authority to permit an evil practice anymore than permitting women priestesses. Altar girls are the rotten fruit of a counterfeit church.

I will post this letter on my website and any and all replies thereafter.

Sincerely,

Steven Speray

Read Full Post »