Correction re capital punishment + FREE offer for Catholic readers

In "Arizona to use chemical invented by a Jew to execute criminals", WWW 3/6/21, I wrote: "Much in all as there are 1000s of miscreants whose removal from society would be a public good, Walt remains opposed to the death penalty. Exodus 20:13." 

That sentiment is in line with the teaching of the "new and improved" Roman Catholic Church, which says, in its "new and improved" Catechism, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." 

Our old friend Christopher A. Ferrara, whose words have been quoted here many times, says that statement is wrong, contrary to 2000 years of Church teaching based on Divine Revelation. He quotes from Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image."

As regards the Fifth Commandment, to which I referred, Mr Ferrara points out that the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that capital punishment of murderers defends human dignity. "The use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this commandment which prohibits murder."

Since the Council of Trent, unlike Vatican II, was a dogmatic council, its interpretation must be understood to be the true teaching of the One True Church. I therefore stand corrected.

FREE offer to Catholic Readers

Mr Ferrara's thoughts on capital punishment are taken from a newly published article (in the Fatima Crusader, Summer 2021) headed "3000 Days to Flatten the Curve"

The reference is to the almost 3000 days which have passed since Jorge Bergoglio began his reign of error as Pope Francis, and to the almost 3000 days remaining until the 100th anniversary of the instruction of Our Lady of Fatima to Sister Lucia during the apparition at Tuy, Spain, on 13 June 1929.

The moment has come [Our Lady said] when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.

So numerous are the souls that the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me, that I come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray. 

Mr Ferrara argues that today, as the failure of a line of Popes to heed Our Lady's request nears that 100th anniversary, why Sister Lucia said that the Third Secret of Fatima should be revealed not later than 1960 -- just before the commencement of the Second Vatican Council -- because it would be "more clear" then.

The Second Vatican Council caused a revolution in the Church, more terrible in its consequences than the French Revolution or the Communist Revolution in Russia. In "3000 Days to Flatten the Curve", Christopher Ferrara give examples of the poisoned fruits of Vatican II, under these headings:

- Chaos in the aftermath of the Council

- Francis' papacy abandons Catholic tradition

- The prophecy of Fatima is ever more urgent

The article is too long for us to repost, or even excerpt here. But we will gladly send you a .pdf file if you will send an e-mail to Ed. requesting it. There is no charge. It's FREE. And we promise not to use your e-mail address for any purpose whatsoever, not even to send you notices of other articles of interest. We're just not set up to do anything that sophisticated.

As our old friend Michael Matt pointed out in a recent video, even if you're not Catholic, you should be concerned about the very real crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. The Third Secret of Fatima contains a vision of a world destroyed by war with a "bishop in white" being murdered by alien enemies. 

If the Church falls, Western civilization will fall with it, just as our enemies intend. Read the article to find out what you can do, in the next 3000 days, to keep this from happening!

Arizona to use chemical invented by a Jew to execute criminals

You've probably never heard of (((Fritz Haber))). Born in 1868 in Breslau (now in Poland), he personifies the dilemma faced by an ambitious man who wanted to be both a  good Jew and good citizen of Germany. 

Herr Haber, you see, was the inventor of Zykon B, the gas used to murder millions of his co-religionists, including his relatives, as part of Hitler's "final solution". In 1909, he and colleagues discovered a way to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen. This artificial fertilizer went on to be used on a large scale, bringing about a huge increase in crop yields, and practically banishing the fear of famine in large parts of the world. For this, Herr Haber received the Nobel Prize.

Then came World War I. Herr Haber, now working for the Kaiser Bill's research institute in Berlin, was desperate to prove his patriotism. He began experimenting with chlorine gas which, he said, would shorten the war. So it did, but only for 1000s of Allied troops who died in gas attacks at Ypres and subsequent battles.

After WWI, Herr Haber resumed his work on chemicals which would be useful in improving food security. In the 1920s, he and his colleagues were successful in developing pesticide gases, the most effective of which was Zykon B, the trade name of a cyanide-based pesticide, which, as it turned out, Zyklon B was effective not just against insect pests, but on higher orders of life, including  more than a million Jews and other "undesirables" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, and other extermination camps. 

Zyklon B was manufactured and marked by Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG, commonly known as IG Farben, a German chemical and pharmaceutical conglomerate. Formed in 1925 from a merger of six chemical companies, it was seized by the Allies after World War II and divided back into its constituent companies.

So it is that no-one currently makes Zylon B. Which means that the state of Arizona is going to make a batch of home-brewed hydrogen cyanide, with which to end the lives of inmates currently on death row.

The Grauniad reports that the state has purchased a brick of potassium cyanide, sodium hydroxide pellets and sulfuric acid, and is undertaking a refurbishment of the gas chamber at a prison in Florence AZ, to make it "operationally ready."

The usual suspects have been quick to criticize the project, not just because of the method's infamous use in the mass killings of the Nazis, but also because (they say) it has produced some of the most botched, disturbing executions in the United States. 

It would have to go some to be worse than the botched electrocution depicted in The Green Mile, but  which is the lesser of the two evils is debatable. A law professor at Fordham University is quoted by the Washington Post as saying that "it's without question that lethal gas, or at least the lethal gas that Arizona is trying to bring back, is the most gruesome of all these methods we’ve had in this country." 

For its part, the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry said it was "prepared to perform its legal obligation and commence the execution process as part of the legally imposed sentence, regardless of method selected." They point to the Arizona statute allowing a defendant sentenced to death for a crime committed before November 23, 1992 to choose between lethal injection or lethal gas.

Lethal gas is permitted for executions in six other states: Alabama, California, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Wyoming. Oklahoma, Mississippi and Alabama have authorized nitrogen hypoxia, which uses nitrogen to deprive the body of oxygen. Arizona’s preparation to use lethal gas comes amid a scarcity of execution drugs, which has caused other states to re-examine firing squads and other execution methods.  

There would seem to be an investment opportunity there for an existing company [like Bayer, which was part of IG Farben? Ed.] or "emerging entrepreneur" unconcerned about the morality of the death penalty. Much in all as there are 1000s of miscreants whose removal from society would be a public good, Walt remains opposed to the death penalty. Exodus 20:13. 

VIDEO: Is the death penalty really "inadmissable" or "unacceptable"?

Last week, Pope Francis sowed a great deal of confusion amongst faithful Catholics -- especially traditional Catholics like yr obdt servant -- by declaring that capital punishment -- the death penalty -- is "unacceptable in all cases". Until now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) taught that the death penalty was acceptable if it was "the only practicable way" to defend lives and protect society.

On Thursday, the Pope said that executions are "an attack on human dignity", and that the Church would work "with determination" to abolish capital punishment worldwide. Abolishing the death penalty has long been one of the Francis's top priorities, along with saving the environment and caring for immigrants and "refugees". That tells you all you need to know about the man who apparently wants to go down in history as "the SJW pope".

The Holy Father seems to have overlooked (or ignored) the fact that making this radical change to what the Church has always taught is likely to challenge Catholic politicians, judges and officials who have argued that their Church was not entirely opposed to capital punishment. And let's not forget the millions of "ordinary people" like Walt who understood from many right-to-life events that the Church was opposed to capital punishment, in any circumstance, as Pope Francis is now saying.

"Thou shalt not kill." Period. I was dimly aware that there were exceptions to that commandment -- a just war, for example -- but didn't realize that an exception might apply in certain criminal cases. Had I thought about it, I would have wondered what sort of crimes deserved that punishment, other than murder. Would treason, for example, be rightly punishable by "Off with his head!"? It certainly wasn't justifiable in the case of Saint Thomas More. How about abortion? Should we kill the baby-killers? How about rape? How bad would it have to be? Would the age of the victim be a factor? There are those who think that execution is too good for someone who rapes of a child of tender years. (St Matthew 18:6)

There is a further point of concern. The president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization (whatever that is) said that the revision of the CCC's teaching on the death penalty is an instance of "true dogmatic progress...that has gradually matured to the point of making us understand the unsustainability of the death penalty in our day." That's the official Vatican line. It's all part of that "hermeneutic of continuity" that Pope Benedict XVI talked about while making a series of radical breaks with the past.

Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican organ, Abp Rino Fisichella said Church tradition "is not representable as an insect imprisoned in amber, to say it in a colorful English expression. If that were the case, we would have destroyed it. The teaching of the faith of the Church, rather, is an announcement, a word that remains alive..."

But that's Newspeak (vide 1984) It's just wrong! A diocesan priest wrote to me his thoughts on "a very bad move by Francis. I still think that the Holy Spirit knew that it would be a severe test of the faith of many good conservative Catholics; or that maybe Satan got permission from God to 'inspire' the Pope to do this, sure that it would do a lot of harm....

"Catholics in general were not against total mercy, not against dealing with crime other than [by] capital punishment, but...against total condemnation of it because of Scripture, the Church, and tradition. Commendable faith. But the teaching has always been justifying capital punishment, not commanding it....

"On so many levels Francis seems wrong. In order to agree with him I might have to double down and go with the assumption that God in the Old Testament (and even in the New) has catered to man's weakness. That would explain why He allowed polygamy in the O.T. On the other hand, Christ decreed the end of polygamy but did not do the same for capital punishment.... Does that mean there is a difference between changing a teaching that specifically allows something (e.g. capital punishment in some circumstances) and changing a teaching that specifically condemns something (e.g. homosexual practices)?

"I'm also concerned that the Church is taking the necessary tools away from the civil authorities to exercise their responsibility to control crime in some times, places and conditions. These circumstances prevailed in the past, probably exist to some extent even now, and could return again in the unforeseeable future."

That's one priest's opinion. Here's another, the latest in the "Sunday Sermons from South St. Paul" series on The Remnant TV. In what surely must be one of the most courageous sermons of 2018, this diocesan priest (from a different diocese) takes the gloves off and asks: "What's it going to be? The constant teaching established by Scripture, doctors and fathers of the Church, sainted popes and God Himself? Or that which rests on the whim of Pope Francis, who seems to think the Catholic Church’s binding teaching is whatever his opinion happens to be." God help us, what is this man thinking, that in the middle of the most outrageous clerical sex scandal to date he decides it’s time to go after capital punishment.



Further reading:
"The Absolute 'No' To the Death Penalty. A Victory For the Gospel, Or For 'Secular Humanism'?", by Sandro Magister, in Settimo Cielo, his blog in L'Espresso, 6/8/18.
"Le non absolu à la peine de mort. Victoire de l’Évangile ou de 'l’humanisme séculier'?" The same, in French, in Diakonos.be: Regards sur l'Eglise catholique.
"The Death Penalty, Instituted by God Himself (The Biblical Basis for Catholic Teaching on Capital Punishment)", an older piece by Solange Herts (RIP), reprinted in The Remnant, 6/8/18.

Medical tests to be used to keep gays out of Arabian Gulf states

Seems like the Russians aren't the only ones who don't welcome homosexuals into their countries. Sodomy and other homosexual acts [Please don't go on! Ed.] are unlawful in the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -– and their nationals presumably know better than to get caught packing fudge or whatever.

Homosexual acts can draw a long stretch in prison in states like Kuwait (10 years), or the death sentence in Yemen or Saudi Arabia. Walt is not sure if the sentence is carried out by beheading, but wouldn't be surprised. Serves the buggers right!

A problem arises, though, when gay foreigners enter the highly moral Arab countries, bringing with them their decadent Western ways and diseases. So, on the theory that it's better to deny them entry than have to behead them (with the attendant Western liberal pissing and moaning), the GCC are busily devising new means to detect members of the LGBT gang and keep them out of their countries.

Even as we speak, the Kuwaitis are developing a new medical test to separate the sheep from the goats. [There's something queer about that metaphor. Ed.] Yousouf Mindkar, the Director of Public Health at the Kuwaiti health ministry told the Kuwait newspaper Al Rai: "Health centres conduct the routine medical check to assess the health of the expatriates when they come into the GCC countries. However, we will take stricter measures that will help us detect gays who will be then barred from entering Kuwait or any of the GCC member states."

Mr. Mindkar did not give details of the "stricter measures". One shudders to think.

Lest you think that it's only the backward Muslims and homophobic Russkis who are resisting the Great Englightenment ("It's OK to be gay!"), Walt can confirm that it’s illegal to be gay in 78 countries. Lesbianism is banned in 49. Those figures are from the Daily Mail article which is the source of this story. I find them a bit confusing because I thought you had to be gay to be a lesbian, and vice versa, but I'm not up on the latest permutations and combinations.

In a totally unrelated story, of possible interest (only) to Walt's Canadian readers, John Greyson and Tarek Loubani are still detained in Egypt, which is one of the 78 countries mentioned above.

Kermit the Baby-Killer pro-life after all!

Turns out that Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist convicted of murdering three babies by "snipping" their spinal cords, is really pro-life... provided the life in question is his!

The "good doctor" cut a deal with Pennsylvania prosecutors yesterday to avoid a possible death sentence. In exchange for waiving his right to appeal, he accepts a sentence of life without parole. Since Gosnell is 72 years old -- and jailhouse justice being what it is -- he may not be behind bars for much longer.

The state had been seeking the death penalty because Gosnell killed more than one person -- and "person" is the right word! -- and his victims were especially vulnerable given their "age". But Gosnell’s own advanced age had made it unlikely he would ever be judicially executed before his appeals ran out.

The sentencing deal spares Gosnell’s family the humiliating task of pleading for his wretched life in court. Seems Dr. G. is no believer in abortion when it comes to his own. He has six children, the youngest of them a teenager born to his third wife, who also pled guilty in the case.

See also: "Unborn children treated like 'trash' in America" -- a sad commentary on the "values" which the Obama government tries to impose on not just American citizens but the entire world.

Click here to see more "Libtards" by Dixon Diaz.

What should be done with killers like the Tsarnaevs?

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead, killed in a shootout with Boston police about 36 hours ago. The elder of the two terrorist brothers was named for the infamous "Tamerlane", a vicious conqueror who razed ancient cities to the ground and put entire populations to the sword. Tamerlan is the one who said "I don't have a single American friend. I don't understand them."

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger brother of Tamerlan, was apparently wounded in Thursday night's gun battle. He was discovered yesterday evening, hiding in a boat in someone's driveway. He is now in custody in a Boston hospital, where he is said to be in serious condition.

"Why did they do it?" -- assuming that they did do it -- has already been asked by everyone from Walt to the Prez and back again. If Dzokhar lives -- well, who knows? --  he will doubtless be asked that very question. Do not expect a particularly rational answer. Rather we may hear something along the lines of "I was mad at the world, so I decided to kill some Americans".

It may be that the two brothers "suffered" from anomie or alienation or weltschmerz or all of the above. It may also be that they were agents of a foreign power -- Russia, for instance -- or a foreign "religion of peace". They certainly didn't try very hard to cover their tracks or escape. Perhaps they were looking forward to martyrdom for Islam, and the delights of the 72 virgins awaiting them in the Muslim heaven.

But let's go with the first possibility -- that they were acting on their own for no better reason than dissatisfaction with their lives in the country that welcomed them as refugees and gave them the opportunity to get an education and a better life than they could ever have had in Kyrgystan or Dagestan or anywhere else in the miserable part of the world from which they came.

What should be done with someone who would commit a cowardly, dastardly and ultimately meaningless act of that nature? How about strapping a pressure cooker filled with shrapnel to his back and then...

1000s of voices will be raised -- Walt can hear them already -- calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty, at least for acts of terrorism. But was the Boston Marathon bombing an act of terrorism? Or just plain, senseless murder? Assuming the brothers Tsarnaev were not directed or controlled by outside forces, how is their crime any different from that of, say, Adam Lanza?

So Walt asks again, what is to be done with murderers? The Church teaches that we must follow the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. What remains, then, is to remove murderers -- including terrorists -- from our society, not so much as punishment as for our protection and the (possible) deterrent effect on other killer wannabes.

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, the British used to transport their worst offenders to Australia. The French gave their a one-way ticket to Devil's Island. Such places seemed so remote, in those days, that there was no way criminals could ever return to "civilization".

Do similar places of exile still exist? Well, Alaska has a lot of cold, empty space. And there are several flyspecks in the Pacific still under the flag of the USA. How about a nice trip to the South Seas for Mr. Tsarnaev? Maybe he wouldn't find 72 virgins there, but America would be rid of him.

Footnote: Walt hasn't forgotten about due process. Put Tsarnaev on trial before putting him on a slow boat to Guam.

Food for thought: Last week's Economist had an article, "Not dead yet", pointing out that the USA executed 43 criminals in 2012, less than half the number killed in 1999, when capital punishment peaked in America. Luckily for Adam Lanza, last April Connecticut became the 17th state to abolish the deah penalty.

More food for thought: Should America (and Britain and Canada) really be opening the doors to "refugees" from places like Chechnya, a part of the Middle East that has spawned decades of violence -- from separatist wars to suicide attacks, blood feuds and hostage sieges. See "How did Chechnya's culture of terror come to Boston?"