Chapter VI The lawfulness of the death penalty in the Bible and in Tradition and the errors of Pope Francis in this regard, in Amoris Laetitia and in his other writings.

1) The death penalty in Amoris Laetitia, and in other statements of Pope Francis.

The error concerning the order of charity, in n. 101 of Amoris Letitia, seen by us above, is certainly one of the causes that determine a further error regarding the death penalty. 83 of Amoris Laetitia states "In the same way, the Church not only feels the urgency of affirming the right to natural death, avoiding therapeutic fury and euthanasia", but "firmly rejects the death penalty "(Relatio finalis 2015, 64.)." This last passage reiterates what was said in the Relatio Finalis of the Synod: "In the same way, the Church not only feels the urgency to affirm the right to natural death, avoiding therapeutic fury and euthanasia, but also takes care of elderly, protects people with disabilities, assists the terminally ill, comforts the dying, firmly rejects the death penalty (cf. CCC, 2258). "[1] .

It should also be said that Pope Francis has radically opposed the death penalty in various of his interventions in recent years.

In fact, he said:

“It is impossible to imagine that States today cannot have any other means than capital punishment to defend the lives of other people from the unjust aggressor.

Saint John Paul II condemned the death penalty (cf. Encyclical letter Evangelium vitae, 56), as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2267). ...

The arguments against the death penalty are many and well known. The Church has opportunely pointed out some of them ...

All Christians and men of good will are therefore called today to fight not only for the abolition of the death penalty, whether legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also in order to improve prison conditions, in respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty.[2]

The Pope also stated:

“A sign of hope is the development, in public opinion, of a growing opposition to the death penalty, even as an instrument of legitimate social defense. In fact, today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the offender's crime may be. It is an offense to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God's plan for man and society and his merciful justice and prevents the fulfillment of the just purpose of penalties. It does not do justice to the victims, but it fuels revenge. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has an absolute value and includes both the innocent and the guilty. "[3]

Further statements by Pope Francis on this topic are as follows:

“I hope that the symposium will give renewed impetus to the commitment to abolish the death penalty. … The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has absolute value and concerns both the innocent and the guilty. … Even the criminal maintains the inviolable right to life, a gift of God. I appeal to the conscience of the rulers, so that an international consensus can be reached for the abolition of the death penalty. … All Christians and men of good will are called today to work not only for the abolition of the death penalty, but also for the purpose of improving prison conditions, while respecting the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. "[4]

The Pope also said: “I am thinking, in fact, of the death penalty. This problem cannot be reduced to a mere memory of historical teaching without bringing out not only the progress in doctrine by the last Popes, but also the changed awareness of the Christian people, which rejects a consenting attitude towards a punishment that heavily damages human dignity. It must be strongly affirmed that the death penalty is an inhuman measure that humiliates personal dignity in whatever way it is pursued. It is in itself contrary to the Gospel because it is voluntarily decided to suppress a human life which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which God alone is ultimately the true judge and guarantor. "[5]

As we can see, the Pope affirms a radical opposition of the death penalty to the Gospel. Continuing the speech, the Pope said that "not even the murderer loses his personal dignity"[6], in fact, God is a Father who always awaits the return of his errant son who asks for forgiveness and begins a new life. " The Pope then went on to say that in the past, given the situation of backwardness compared to today, the death penalty was considered a logical consequence of the application of justice; in this line, the Pope condemned, in a certain way, the use of the death penalty in the Papal States in past centuries, neglecting the primacy of mercy over justice. According to the Pope, the use of the death penalty was dictated by a more legalistic than Christian mentality. The Pope then specified that his statements do not imply a contradiction with the teaching of the past but a harmonious development of it, given that the Church has always defended human life from conception to natural death. The Pope then concluded: "It is therefore necessary to reiterate that, however serious the crime committed may have been, the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person."[7]

Recently Pope Francis wanted to change n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, here is the new text in its most significant part: "... the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that" the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person ", [1] and is committed to its abolition worldwide. "[8]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wanted to explain the change made by the Pope on n. 2267 of the Catechism saying, among other things, the following: “1. The Holy Father Francis… asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated, in order to better reflect the development of the doctrine that has taken place on this point in recent times. Francis, Address to the participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization (11 October 2017): L'Osservatore Romano (13 October 2017), 4.] This development rests mainly on the ever clearer awareness in the Church of respect due to every human life. In this line, John Paul II affirmed: "Not even the murderer loses his personal dignity and God himself is his guarantor." [John Paul II, Encyclical letter. Evangelium vitae (25 March 1995), n. 9: AAS 87 (1995), 411.] "[9] The text points out that if in the past the death penalty was acceptable, today it is no longer so both for the lively awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even if the person commits great sins, and for the deep understanding of the meaning of the punishments. imposed by the state, and for the development of more effective detention systems that ensure the necessary defense of citizens. The document then recalls various statements by Popes opposed to the death penalty and therefore concludes: "It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, so that it is stated that" as far as the crime committed may have been serious, the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person. "[Francis, Address to the participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization (11 October 2017): L'Osservatore Romano (13 October 2017), 5.] The new redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, is in continuity with the previous Magisterium, carrying out a coherent development of Catholic doctrine. "[10]

The text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith tries to offer indications for presenting the novelties desired by Pope Francis as a harmonious development of Catholic doctrine.

The words of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith actually appear as a clever "cover" with which the Pope's collaborators try to hide his errors. Pope who on many points, as we are already seeing, spreads teachings that deviate from right faith and in particular from true Catholic morality. These innovations are not harmonious development of the Church's doctrine but a grave error of a Pope who on this point as on others does not spread the Church's doctrine.

These innovations are a betrayal of sound doctrine made by a Pope who shows that he radically rejects the Natural Law and the Revealed Law since they, in particular, clearly affirm the lawfulness, in some cases, of the death penalty; in this regard it should be noted that the Pope had stated: "... The certainty that every life is sacred and that human dignity must be safeguarded without exception, has led me, from the very beginning of my ministry, to work at different levels for the universal abolition of the death penalty. All this has been recently reflected in the new drafting of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which now expresses the progress of the doctrine of the last Popes ... A penalty contrary to the Gospel, because it means suppressing a life which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which only God is the true judge and guarantor (cf. Letter to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, March 20, 2015). "[11] Therefore, for the Pope, the death penalty is contrary to the Gospel. Even the Pope also stated that the Church proclaimed the lawfulness of the death penalty by mistake, due to a legalistic mentality: "... This is why the new version of the Catechism implies that we also assume our responsibility for the past and that we recognize that the acceptance of this type of punishment was the consequence of a mentality of the age that was more legalistic than Christian, which made sacred the value of laws lacking humanity and mercy. ... "[12]

Therefore the death penalty would have always been accepted in the Church as a consequence of a more legalistic than Christian mentality of the age, which has sanctified the value of laws lacking humanity and mercy. As we will see things are very different in fact the Gospel, in line with the OT, does not condemn the death penalty and rather shows rather accept it, as we will see; equally the Tradition fully recognizes the lawfulness of the death penalty in some situations. In the same speech we have just seen, the Pope reiterated the lawfulness of legitimate defense: “It is therefore legitimate to enforce one's right to life, even when to do so it is necessary to inflict a fatal blow on one's aggressor (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2264). " and specified that: "The defense of the common good requires placing the aggressor in the condition of not being able to cause damage."

The Pope added: “… the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is always inadmissible because it damages the inviolability and dignity of the person. "[13]

These words should be the condemnation of the affirmations of holy Popes, of holy Doctors, of holy Theologians and of the Word of God who for thousands of years have affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty, in reality these words are the condemnation that Pope Francis makes of the its own heterodoxy, unfortunately, as we will see more in the course of this chapter.

That the Pope, however, is speaking here of the Church which teaches the absolute illegality of the death penalty is an evident falsehood; the Church with her holy Popes and holy Doctors and holy Theologians, based on the Bible, has always been in favor of the death penalty, as we shall see, albeit with particular limitations.

What the Pope reports are, therefore, only his statements:

- that they have nothing to do with the true teaching of the Church;

- who are contrary to the sound doctrine that the Church has always spread;

- and which obviously are doubly harmful to the Church itself since they are spread by its Head.

God intervene.

I stress with all the force that I am not saying here, nor has the Church ever said, that the death penalty is always lawful but that in some very particular and particularly serious cases it is lawful. We all know very well that in many or very many cases the powerful kill their opponents by covering themselves with the mantle of "justice" through controlled trials and unjust death sentences and that it is often the weakest and most defenseless who are sentenced to death precisely because they do not have been able to defend himself effectively in trial etc .; Christian wisdom is certainly very well aware of all this ... but the Church is also aware of the fact that in some very particular and particularly serious cases the death penalty is lawful, as we shall see ... instead it is evident that for Pope Francis the penalty of death is contrary to the Gospel, it is inadmissible without ifs and buts… that is, absolutely!

God enlighten us better and better!

2) The sound biblical, traditional and magisterial doctrine on the death penalty.

a) Biblical doctrine.

a, 1) Old Testament

God enlighten us better and better.

To have clearer ideas about the death penalty and its lawfulness, it seems important to me to read what Cardinal Dulles said in an important article that appeared in April 2001, in the magazine First Things. A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, of New York, in the United States of America, entitled Catholicism & Capital punishment (n.112, pp. 30-35)[14] The American Cardinal explains very incisively that the Bible is not opposed to the death penalty, indeed in the OT it was provided for in various cases, moreover no passage of the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty, more precisely he states: "In the Old Testament the Mosaic law specifies no less than thirty-six serious sins punishable by execution by stoning, burning, beheading or strangulation. This list includes idolatry, the practice of magic, blasphemy, violation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, bestiality, pederasty and incest. The death penalty was considered particularly suitable as a punishment for murder because in the covenant with Noah God established the principle that "whoever sheds man's blood /" from man his blood will be shed, / "because in the image of God / "He made man" (Gen. 9, 6). In many cases we see how God justly punishes the guilty with death, as happened in Korah, Dathan and Abiram (cf. Num. 16). In other cases, people like Daniel and Mordecai are God's intermediaries when they rightly punish the guilty with death. "[15]

An American Catholic scholar, Brugger, has thoroughly examined the A. Testament on this subject and rightly states: "Death is prescribed more than forty times and for over twenty offenses throughout the various law codes of the books of the Pentateuch. 1 Serious crimes against religion, the order of the family and community, and human life were all punished with death. "[16] The death penalty was prescribed in the A. Testament more than 40 times and for about 20 crimes against religion, community, family and people's life.

Israel, particularly after the exile, was a political entity, a theocratic nation.

The Law, explains Brugger, was the legal code of Israel and God was the political and legal ruler of Israel, obedience to the Law was at the same time obedience to God and fidelity to the community whose identity he shaped, while the its violation was an act of rebellion against God as well as hostility against the community; the Law had been given to the nation as a whole so the whole community was bound by its ordinances (cf. Lev. 20, 22) so the violations involved the whole community in guilt. The death penalty, continues Brugger, had not only the retributive function of atoning for guilt but also that of eliminating an influence harmful to Israel, furthermore this penalty had the pedagogical role of stimulating within the community a fear of disobedience (Deut. 13,11; 17,13; 19,20; 21,21) and to remind Israel of God's fidelity and power (Deut. 3, 21-22); the death penalty against enemies served as a warning for them to understand that the God of Israel (Deut. 2,25:XNUMX) was to be greatly feared.[17]

Let's see better ... In the TA we read, among other things ...

"Whoever strikes a man causing his death will be put to death." (Ex 21,12:XNUMX)

"If a man strikes a person and kills him, he must be put to death." (Lv 24,17)

"Anyone who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or is still in his hand, will be put to death" (Ex 21,16:XNUMX)

“When a man is found who has kidnapped any of his brothers among the Israelites, exploited him as a slave or sold him, that thief will be put to death. So you will eradicate the evil in your midst. " (Dt 24,7)

"He who offers a sacrifice to the gods, rather than to the Lord alone, will be doomed to extermination." (Ex 22,19:XNUMX)

“« Whoever curse his God will bear the burden of his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death: the whole community must stone him. Foreigner or native of the earth, if he has blasphemed his Name, he will be put to death. " (Lv 24,15-16)

“So you will keep the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Whoever profanes it is to be put to death; whoever does any work on that day, let him be cut off from his people. Work for six days, but on the seventh day there will be absolute rest, sacred to the Lord. Anyone who does work on the Sabbath should be put to death. "(Ex 31,14-15)

"You will not let the one who practices magic live." (Ex 22,17:XNUMX)

"If man or woman among you practice necromancy or divination, they must be put to death: they will be stoned and their blood will fall on them .." (Lv 20,27)

"Anyone who strikes his father or mother will be put to death." (Ex 21,15:XNUMX)

"He who curses his father or mother will be put to death." (Ex 21,17:XNUMX)

“Whoever curses his father and mother must be put to death: he has cursed his father and mother; let his blood fall upon him. " (Lv 20,9)

"If anyone commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Lv 20,10)

“If anyone has intercourse with a wife of his father, he discovers the nakedness of the father; both of them must be put to death: their blood will fall on them.

If one has intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death; they have committed a perversion: their blood will fall on them. " (Lv 20,11-12)

“If a man takes his sister, daughter of his father or daughter of his mother as his wife, he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a shame; they are to be eliminated in the presence of the children of their people. "That man discovered his sister's nakedness: you bear the consequences of her sin." (Lv 20,17)

“If one has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they will have to be put to death: their blood will fall on them.

If a man takes his daughter and his mother as his wife, it is an infamy; he and they will be burned with fire, lest there be such a crime among you.

The man who mates with a beast will have to be put to death; he'll have to kill the beast too. If a woman approaches a beast to mate with it, you will kill the woman and the beast; both of them must be put to death: their blood will fall on them.

If one takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a dishonor; both will be eliminated in the presence of the children of their people. That fellow has discovered his sister's nakedness: she will have to bear the penalty of her guilt.

If one has intercourse with a woman during her menstruation and discovers her nakedness, that fellow has discovered her flow and she has discovered her own blood flow; therefore both will be eliminated from their people. " (Lev. 20, 13-17)

“When a man is found lying with a married woman, both of them must die: the man who has lain with the woman and the woman. Thus you will eradicate evil from Israel. " (Dt 22,22)

"The Lord said to Moses:" Speak to the community and order them: Withdraw from the vicinity of the abode of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. " … Moses said: «By this you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works and that I have not acted on my own initiative. If these people die as all men die, if their lot is the lot common to all men, the Lord did not send me; but if the Lord does a marvelous thing, if the earth opens its mouth wide and swallows them with what belongs to them and if they go down to hell alive, then you will know that these men have despised the Lord. " As he finished speaking all these words, the ground deepened beneath their feet, the earth opened its mouth wide and swallowed them: they and their families, with all the people that belonged to Korah and all their stuff. They went down to hell alive and all that belonged to them; the earth covered them and they disappeared from the assembly. All Israel that was around them fled at their cries; because they said: "May the earth not swallow us too!". A fire came out of the presence of the Lord and devoured the two hundred and fifty men, who were offering incense. " (Numbers 16, 23ss)

In the first book of kings the death penalty inflicted by the prophet Elijah on the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) is narrated a man of God like the great prophet Elijah deals with condemning and slaughtering about 400 prophets of Baal, evidently for their idolatry .

In the book of Daniel there is talk of the death sentence decreed on two elderly lying liars (Dan. 13)… etc. etc.

It should be noted that the biblical statement that "... the Lord said to him:" Whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times is not a declaration of absolute illegality of the death penalty! " The Lord imposed a sign on Cain, so that no one, meeting him, would strike him. "(Gen. 4)

John Paul II said: "God, however, always merciful even when he punishes," imposed a sign on Cain, so that whoever met him would not strike him "(Gen 4:15): he gives him, therefore, a mark, which he has the aim not to condemn him to the execration of other men, but to protect him and defend him from those who want to kill him, even if it is to avenge the death of Abel. Not even the murderer loses his personal dignity and God himself is his guarantor. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of God's merciful justice is manifested " [18]

The Polish Pope then quotes a text by s. Ambrogio in which the s. Doctor affirms that having been committed a very serious sin immediately God extended the law of divine mercy so that it did not occur that men did not use any meekness in punishing therefore God rejected Cain but did not want to punish the murderer with a murder, since he wants the repentance of the sinner more than his death.[19] As we will see by studying the Fathers of the Church and in particular St. Ambrose, they all accept the death penalty, based on the Bible. St. Ambrose therefore does not want to absolutely deny this penalty but only to say that in this case God did not want it to be applied. The Evangelium Vitae which quotes this passage from St. Ambrose, moreover, reiterates the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases (John Paul II “Evangelium Vitae” n. 56), as we will see better later.

The text of Gn. 4 does not absolutely affirm the unlawfulness of the death penalty, it simply protects Cain; on the other hand it is evident that the Lord himself, speaking to Moses, commands, in the texts that I have reported above and belonging to the Pentateuch, that this capital punishment be applied to the people of Israel. If God had absolutely condemned the death penalty, he would never have commanded it to be applied. Tradition, which has fully accepted the lawfulness of the death penalty, as we shall see, obviously denied that this passage affirms the absolute illegality of the death penalty.

God's statement regarding Cain must be placed well in the context of the situation and in the context of the whole Bible: for the sin committed by Adam and Eve the Authority who inflicts the punishment is God (Gen. 3), and God equally is the Authority that fixes the punishment for Cain; it is not man but God who sets the punishment for sin. The just punishment for the sin of man, the whole Bible clearly says, only God can establish it in an upright and just way, God is the Judge (Gen 18,25; Rom. 2), and man can do it rightly under God's guidance because judgment belongs to God (Deut. 1,17:8,16; Jn. XNUMX:XNUMX). Whoever killed Cain did it against God's will, in fact God is the supreme Lawgiver and Judge and everything, even death sentences must be carried out according to his Will. The passage from Genesis in question does not deny the lawfulness of the death sentence; it denies that it can be imposed outside the will of God, therefore it offers an illuminating clarification that serves to eliminate the satanic claims of those who use the death penalty. to do justice according to God but to condemn through laws and processes contrary to the will of God and to kill, against the will of God, innocent people. In fact, God is the supreme Lawgiver and Judge, he is Lord of life and death. All judgments and condemnations, even capital ones, must be carried out according to his Will, according to his Word.

God enlighten us better and better.

E. (Latin H.) Lio in a profound article that can be read in “Dictionarium morale et canonicum”, Officium Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, t. III p. 677ss states that the laws of the to. Testaments that imposed the death penalty for certain crimes were also "leges quae interpretabantur legem naturalem" that is, laws that explained the natural law. The famous Franciscan moralist specifies in this line, practically with all theologians, until then, that the consent of all peoples in imposing the death penalty indicates the intrinsic lawfulness of the death penalty. Therefore whoever wants to deny lawfulness according to natural law must also reject this argument which is drawn from the consensus of all peoples.

The fact that the Bible speaks clearly of lawfulness and indeed in certain cases of the obligation to impose the death penalty indicates that this lawfulness is clearly stated in the revealed Law. Not only the natural law but also the revealed law speaks of the lawfulness of the death penalty.

a, 2) New Testament.

Cardinal Dulles affirms that in the New Testament the right of the state to put criminals to death appears to be taken for granted. “… In no case does Jesus deny that the State has the authority to inflict capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus mentions - with approval - the severe commandment according to which "whoever curses his father and mother should be put to death" (Mt 15, 4; Mk 7, 10 referring to Ex. 21, 7 ; cf. Lev. 20, 9). When Pilate reminds Jesus that he has the authority to crucify him, Jesus specifies that Pilate's authority comes to him from above, that is, from God (cf. Jn 19:11). Jesus is pleased with the words of the good thief, crucified next to him, when he admits that he and his companion receive the reward due for their actions (cf. Lk. 23, 41). "[20]  As we can see, it is evident that the right of the State to put to death is taken for granted and is never denied, for this reason the first Christians evidently had nothing against the death penalty and the New Testament, in this line, when states that "when someone has violated the law of Moses, he is mercilessly put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Heb. 10, 28) it does not seem that there is any problem with this precept due to the fact that the penalty is imposed of death.

... therefore the statement of Pope Francis that: the death penalty is a penalty contrary to the Gospel, because it means suppressing a life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which only God is the true judge and guarantor .[21] In reality, some other Gospel passage also presents us with the death penalty, think of the parable of Luke 19 which ends with these words: "And those of my enemies, who did not want me to become their king, bring them here and kill them in front of me. »" (Luke 19,27:XNUMX) Evidently we are faced with the death penalty ... and Christ does not say anything that suggests a condemnation of the death penalty ... on the contrary, he uses the example to clearly speak of the final condemnation that God reserves for his opponents .

To chap. 20 of the same Gospel of Luke we read, at the end of the parable of the murderous peasants, that the owner ...: "He will come, kill those peasants and give the vineyard to others". Evidently we are also faced with the death penalty here ... and Christ does not say anything that suggests a condemnation of the death penalty ... on the contrary, he uses the example to clearly speak of the final sentence that God reserves for his opponents.

Also in the Gospel of Matthew we find a parable in which it speaks of a king who kills his wicked subjects ... "Then the king was indignant: he sent his troops, had those murderers killed and set their city on fire." (Mt 22,1-14) Evidently we are also faced with the death penalty here ... and Christ does not say anything that suggests a condemnation of the death penalty ... on the contrary, he uses the example to clearly speak of the final sentence that God reserves for its opponents.

In the Gospel of Mark in chap. 12, at the end of the parable of the murderous peasants we read: “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill the farmers and give the vineyard to others. "

Evidently we are also faced with the death penalty here ... and Christ does not say anything that suggests a condemnation of the death penalty ... on the contrary, he uses the example to clearly speak of the final sentence that God reserves for his opponents.

a, 2,1) In Jn. 8 Does Christ completely abrogate the death penalty?

The chap. 8 of the Gospel of John where it speaks of the woman caught in adultery is sometimes presented as a passage that would deny the lawfulness of the death penalty.

Let's say first of all that this passage from the Gospel is not mentioned by any Eastern Father before the XNUMXth century, in the Latin area the text has been known since the XNUMXth century.[22] for this reason, unfortunately, there is a lack of indications from several Fathers on the subject.

The passage in question does not clearly speak of any illegitimacy of the death penalty, it does not affirm any contrast between the death penalty and the Law of God, indeed, when it is said that certain sins are punished with death Jesus could clearly state the unlawfulness of this penalty but does not. In the episode of the adulterous woman, St. Augustine, Jesus Christ: "... she did not disapprove of the law that prescribed the death penalty for women guilty of adultery, but at the same time, with fear, she called to compassion those in whose judgment she could be sentenced to death."[23]. When St. Augustine comments on this Gospel he does not see in it a passage in which Christ shows the will to cancel the death penalty from then on and forever; the passage, on the other hand, must be seen objectively as a test to which Jesus is subjected; behind the test is the perversity of his enemies, which opposes the truth of Christ, there is their corrupt heart which opposes the righteous heart of Christ[24].

Notice that Christ simply states that whoever is sinless can stone the woman… then he states that he, who was not a judge, does not condemn her… without explaining why. Jesus goes to the concrete case and says absolutely nothing on the general question of the lawfulness of the death penalty! Jesus leaves the doctrinal question about the death penalty and simply goes to the concrete case and affirms that he, like the others, does not condemn women. The fact that Christ does not enter into the doctrinal question of the lawfulness of the death penalty is extremely significant, he is evidently not touching here on the principle of the legitimacy of the death penalty! He is only dealing with the particular case.

Explain s. Augustine: “In what sense then did they want to put him to the test, in order to have something to accuse him of? We have the opportunity to admire, brothers, the extraordinary meekness of the Lord. … And since his enemies, out of envy and anger, were unable to forgive him neither truth nor meekness, they staged a scandal for the third thing, that is, for justice. … So they said to each other: He considered himself a friend of the truth and passes for meek; we must strike up a scandal on justice for him; let us introduce him to a woman caught in adultery, let us remind him of what the law establishes in such cases. If he orders her to be stoned, she will not show meekness; if she decides that she is released, she will not save justice. … The Lord, in fact, responds in such a way as to save justice without denying meekness. He does not fall into the trap that was set for him, instead those who set it fall into it: it is that they did not believe in the one who could free them from every snare. "[25]

In the Catena Aurea s. Thomas reports various affirmations of the Fathers on this passage, and none of them is in the sense of abolishing the death penalty; the Angelic Doctor, a follower of Truth and Holy Tradition, affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty, as we shall see. Certainly yes. Thomas would not have defended, as he did, the death penalty if Jn. 8 had said that it should be abolished.

Leaving the legitimacy of the death penalty intact, Jesus affirms various things about the concrete case… I underline the concrete case.

First of all it should be noted that, in the concrete case, Christ had not been appointed judge by the people of Israel, a case like that had to be submitted to the Sanhedrin; therefore the case in question does not present itself as a true judgment in which Christ is called to affirm the Law of God and to apply it to the end as an established judge, the man with whom the woman has sinned is also missing ... In short, we obviously find ourselves in the face of a situation that has no real judicial value, the test to which Jesus is subjected is a merely doctrinal test, with no real consequences on the practical level.

Nothing would follow from the words of Christ at the judicial level for the woman. On another occasion Jesus had significantly said: "O man, who made me judge or mediator over you?" (Luke 12,14:XNUMX)

If I have not been appointed as a judge, obviously, I, like those who brought this woman to me, cannot condemn ... so: "Neither do I condemn you." ... I, like them, are not constituted judges ... Jesus unmasks himself with extreme wisdom from the net in which they wanted to entangle those who wanted to accuse him ...

Not even the men who had brought the woman to her, in the specific case, could stone her ... a trial was needed before the Sanhedrin (cf. Ricciotti “Life of Christ”, ed. Mondadori 2011 II reprint pp. 466).

At that time the Sanhedrin had the power to directly issue death sentences but not to have them executed, the Roman magistrate had to intervene for the execution (see Ricciotti "Life of Christ", ed. Mondadori 2011 II reprint pp. 63)

A solemn judicial rule wanted death sentences to be avoided as much as possible and it seems that such sentences were very rare (see Ricciotti "Life of Christ", ed. Mondadori 2011 II reprint pp. 63).

Leaving intact the validity of the doctrine regarding the legitimacy of the death penalty, Christ's answers must be understood considering the particularities of the concrete case; there is no condemnation because, evidently, the concrete case excludes it.

And precisely because the concrete case excludes the death penalty, Christ calls as Judge the same God who is without sin: God, the Holy One, may intervene and in holiness lead someone to justly condemn her if she really is to be condemned.

Christ is God-man: he knows well that God does not intervene and that obviously none of them are sinless!

Furthermore, Christ takes advantage of it to invite the woman to lead the life to which God calls her: sin no more ...

I point out that the Bible also reports a case of a woman falsely accused of adultery (cf. Dn. 13) it does not seem that the woman of Jn. 8 be holy like Susanna, in fact the words of Christ rather go in the sense that she had sinned ... but it was not right to condemn her to death, just as it was not right to condemn Cain to death (Gen. 4,15:XNUMX) even if she had killed Abel. Judgment belongs to God, Supreme Judge is God, He knows when it is right to condemn, He can judge and condemn!

Christ is God and man and as God himself had fixed the death penalty through Moses… and in John 8 he does not touch the principle that the death penalty is legitimate, he only enters into the concrete question of the condemnation of women; however, that is not a trial, the testimonies appear vague, the man with whom the woman sinned is missing, it is not known whether the woman was raped or in any case acted against her real will, the men who accuse her cannot condemn her ... not even He, who has not been made a judge and therefore has no authority, condemns her.

The partisans of abolitionism regarding the death penalty should look for, if they find it, some other biblical passage that supports their affirmations, because this one of John 8 not only does not support their ideas but rather refutes them: Christ, in fact, finding himself before a case that recalls the death sentence fixed by him through Moses does not declare it abrogated ... and therefore indirectly and publicly confirms it! It seems clear that the death penalty after this meeting of Jesus with this woman remains generally and fully in force therefore, as we are seeing and as we will see better later, the Church, which knows this passage from John's Gospel well, has always considered it lawful. death penalty .

a, 2,2) Teaching of St. Paolo and s. Pietro on issues relating to the death penalty.

St. Paul, who knew the Gospel and Christ well, wrote, with an evident reference to the death penalty, that the authority “[…] not in vain does it carry the sword; he is in fact at the service of God for the just condemnation of those who do evil "(Rom. 13, 4).

In his article on the death penalty H. Lio [26] examine this text by s. Paul and first affirms that this text cannot be explained otherwise except in the sense that the magistrates can punish men with the sword and that this distinguished right of life and death the magistrates received and exercise it not recklessly but so that they punish with it those who act for evil, then quote from this passage of s. Paolo the comment of the famous exegete F. Prat that the magistrates do not carry the sword in vain, symbol of the right of life and death: a formidable right that can only come from the Master of life; therefore their punishments, as just, are God's punishments (cf. F. Prat, "La Theologie de saint Paul", II, Beauchesne, Paris 1949 p. 392), F. Prat's comment is practically equal to that of other Catholic exegetes regarding this passage, in this same sense understood this passage s. Ambrose, s. Augustine, s. Innocent I and practically all Catholic theologians.

As regards the interpretation of Rm 13,4 and in particular on the question of the value of the term μάχαιραν (machairan) it must be said that the question of the meaning of the "sword" in Rm 13,4 is resolved, in the line of Tradition, by the great biblical scholars ... who spoke in "unsuspecting times" ...

Ricciotti in his text “The letters of s. Paolo translated and commented "ed. Coletti, Rome, 1949, on p. 353, explains that the statement of St. Paul (Romans 13,4) for whom authority carries "the sword" is a metonymy for the right to punish, which began with the death penalty, the ius gladii, and went down to the lesser penalties ", the metonymy is a" figure of traditional rhetoric, which consists in the transfer of meaning from one word to another based on a relationship of spatial, temporal or causal contiguity "[27] in this case the biblical author speaks of the sword to indicate what the sword causes, that is, also death.

The term sword is also used in Rm 8,35 and Ricciotti specifies that it is a metonymy that indicates violent death (Ricciotti "The letters of St. Paul translated and commented" ed. Coletti, Rome, 1949, p. 323) In the letter to the Hebrews 11,37 the term machaira is used to indicate the punishment and also the death given with the sword ...

F. Zorell in his “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti”, (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome 1990) at the with the. 805 specifies that the term μάχαιρα (machaira) has various meanings: greater knife, in particular small sword but is generally used in the meaning of sword and indicates death by metonymy (Rm 8,35) and indicates the right to punish (Rm 13,4 ) ... and rightly Ricciotti, as we have just seen, highlights that the affirmation of s. Paul (Romans 13,4) for whom authority carries "the sword" is a metonymy for the right to punish, which began with the death penalty, the ius gladii, and went down to the lesser penalties "hence the text of Rm 13, 4 clearly and strongly states the death penalty ... in fact, as mentioned, the term sword is also used in Rm 8,35 and Ricciotti specifies that it is a metonymy that indicates violent death (Ricciotti "The letters of St. Paul translated and commented" ed. Coletti, Rome, 1949, p. 323) In the letter to Hebrews 11,37 the term μάχαιρα machaira is used to indicate death given with the sword.

W. Michaelis in the "Great Lexicon of the New Testament" (Paideia, Brescia 1970 vol. VI p. 1419ss) explains precisely that the term in question is used in Rm 13, 4 "as a symbol of punitive power". More generally Michaelis points out that in the NT the violent death is attributed to μάχαιρα (machaira):

1) see Mt. 26, 52: “” Put your sword back in its place, because all those who take the sword will die by the sword;

2) see Ap. 13,10:XNUMX: “He who is to go into captivity, let him go into captivity;

he who is to be killed by the sword, be killed by the sword. In this lies the perseverance and faith of the saints. "

3) see Heb. 11,34.37:35:36: “… they put out the violence of the fire, they escaped the blade of the sword, they drew strength from their weakness, they became strong in war, they repelled invasions of foreigners. 37 Some women got their dead back by resurrection. Others, then, were tortured, not accepting the liberation offered to them, in order to obtain a better resurrection. 1 Others, finally, suffered insults and scourges, chains and imprisonment. 19,1 They were stoned, tortured, cut in two, killed by the sword, walked around covered in sheep and goat skins, needy, troubled, mistreated .. "it should be noted that in these two verses the term in question is used to mention Old Testament events, in particular killings (1 Kings 19,10 ff .; 26,23 Kings 17,33; Jer. 21,24), it should also be noted that in various passages of the LXX (Ex. 13,16; Num. 20,13, 11,37; Deut. XNUMX; XNUMX) the expression ἐν φόνῳ ⸀μαχαίρης ἀπέθανον is used, found in Heb. XNUMX:XNUMX, indicating death given by sword;

4) see also Lk. 21, 24: “They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the pagans until the times of the pagans are fulfilled. " ;

5) see in the text that speaks of the execution of James, Acts 12,2: "He had James, brother of John, killed by the sword."

6) with meaningful value to indicate capital execution, see Rom 8,35:35: “XNUMX Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Perhaps the tribulation, the anguish, the persecution, the hunger, the nakedness, the danger, the sword? "

Michaelis concludes that from all this derives the value of μάχαιρα as a symbol of bloodshed, Ap. 6,4: “Then another horse came out, fiery red. He who sat on it was given power to take peace from the earth and have them slaughter each other's throats, and he was given a great sword. "

In this line, what I draw from this Lexicon of the Greek seems illuminating: “of the sword as the instrument of a magistrate or judge: death by the sword, Romans 8:35; ἀναιρεῖν τινα μάχαιρα, Acts 12: 2; τήν μαχαίρας φόρειν, to bear the sword, is used of him to whom the sword has been committed, viz. to use when a malefactor is to he punished; hence, equivalent to have the power of life and death, Romans 13: 4 (so ξίφος, ξιφη ἔχειν, Philostr. vit. Apoll. 7, 16; vit. sophist. 1, 25, 2 (3), cf. Dion Cass . 42, 27; and in the Talmud the king who bears the sword, of the Hebrew king .. "[28] In particular, for our interest, this means that: the term machaira in Rm 13,4 means having the power of life and death.

In the commentary on Rm 13 made by s. Thomas we read that all that is commonly said of God and creatures derives from God in creatures and as all wisdom is from God so all power is from God. The principles must be established on the communities so that those who are not moved by love to avoid evil and to do good, they are forced to do so by the fear of punishment. On the other hand, princes must help subjects to act out of love and not just out of fear. The princes carry the sword symbol of the power of authority, even of the power to kill, and in this is manifested their being ministers of God who inflict punishment to execute God's righteous judgment on those who sin. According to the principles it is not only lawful but it is meritorious to act with zeal to execute the just judgment of God on those who sin (cf. Super Rom., Chap. 13 l. 1).

St. Thomas who, as we will see, clearly affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty obviously includes capital punishment in the punishments that princes can inflict, and of which he has just spoken to us.

Meyer comments on this passage (Rom. 13,4) saying:

“Οὐ γὰρ εἰκῆ] for not without corresponding reason (frequently so in classical Greek), but in order actually to use it, should the case require.

τὴν μάχαιρ. φορεῖ] What is meant is not the dagger, which the Roman emperors and the governing officials next to them were accustomed to wear as the token of their jus vitae et necis (Aurel. Vict. 13; Grotius and Wetstein in loc.); for μάχαιρα,…, means in the NT always sword… and also among the Greeks the bearing of the sword (Philostr. Vit. Ap. vii. 16) is expressly used to represent that power of the magistrates. … We may add that our passage proves (comp. Acts 25:11) that the abolition of the right of capital punishment deprives the magistracy of a power which is not merely given to it in the OT, but is also decisively confirmed in the NT , and which it (herein lies the sacred limitation and responsibility of this power) possesses as God's minister "[29]

In conclusion, the statement of St. Paul (Romans 13,4) for whom authority carries "the sword" is, as Ricciotti explained, a metonymy for the right to punish, which began with the death penalty, the ius gladii, and descended to the lesser penalties "with such expression, as s. Innocent I, s. Paul highlights in particular the fact that legitimate authority has from God the power to punish, according to justice, evildoers and also to inflict death on them. The words of St. Innocent I, which we will examine further below: “The question arises about those who after Baptism were public administrators and used only the instruments of torture or even issued the death sentence. We do not read anything about them as defined by the ancients. It should be remembered that such powers were granted by God and that, to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, furthermore it was indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4) How could they condemn a behavior who did they see was granted by the authority of God? With regard to them, therefore, we continue to regulate ourselves as we have been regulated up to now, so that it does not appear that we subvert the discipline or that we go against the authority of the Lord. It is reserved for them to give an account of all their actions. "[30] It should be remembered that these powers were granted by God and that, to punish the wicked, the sword was permitted, furthermore it has been indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rom 13: 1. 4)

The text of s. Paul clearly indicates that God has granted authority, insofar as it is in the service of God, the power to hit criminals with capital punishment.

Obviously in s. Paul speaks God and Christ and St. Paul spreads the Gospel ... therefore Pope Francis' statement that: the death penalty is a penalty contrary to the Gospel, because it means suppressing a life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which only God is true judge and guarantor.[31] God free his Church from these errors! .

St. Paul also frequently emphasizes the link between sin and death, think in particular of this affirmation: "... because of one man he entered the world and, with sin, death" (Rom 5,12, 5,15). Think also of this other affirmation: "by the fall of one they all died" (Rom 400:2,17). The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 3,19: “Finally, the consequence explicitly announced in the hypothesis of disobedience (Cf Gn 5,12.) Will be realized: man will return to dust, that dust from which he was taken. (Cf Gn XNUMX.) Death enters the history of humanity. (Cf Rm XNUMX.) "

God enlighten us better and better.

Cyrille Dunot in an interesting article on the death penalty points out that: yes. Paul laid the most precise foundations of the legitimacy of the death penalty: first of all in practice in Acts 25,11 when he fully accepts it for himself, then in theory in Romans 13,4. Furthermore, according to Dunot, s. Paul offers another illuminating passage in this line in 1 Cor. 5,13.[32]

Regarding s. Peter and to his statements on this issue, Dunot, in the same article states that public authority according to St. Peter has the power to punish evildoers and give the reward to the deserving (1 Pt. 2,13f), some Fathers, Dunot says, have held that s. Peter himself sentenced Ananias and Sapphira to death (Acts 5, 1-11).

The text of 1 Pt. 2,13s is the following: “Live in submission to all human authority for the love of the Lord: both to the king as sovereign, and to the governors as sent by him to punish evildoers and reward those who do good. "

Commenting on this passage, Sales notes that St. Pietro: “In w. 13-17 deals with the duties of Christians towards civil power. This passage has several points of contact with what Saint Paul writes, Rom. XIII, 1 et seq. ; Ephes. V, 21-VI, 9; I Tim. II, 1 et seq., Etc. ... The principals must be obeyed, because they are the representatives of the emperor, and exercise in his name the authority to punish the wicked and reward the good (See n. Rom. XIII, 3). "[33]

In this passage the death penalty, then common, is not condemned, but rather a profound justification is given to it, God established civil authority and endowed it with the power to punish the evildoers and reward the just and precisely for love of God be justly subject to such authority established by God himself; obviously such authority must use his power in justice and must not abuse it.

At no. 380 of the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" we read about this passage: "St. Peter exhorts Christians to be" subject to every human institution for the love of the Lord "(1 Pt 2,13:1). The king and his governors have the task of "punishing the evildoers and rewarding the good" (2,14 Pt 1:2,17). Their authority must be "honored" (cf. 1 Pt 2,15:XNUMX), that is, recognized, because God demands an upright behavior, which shuts "the mouth to the ignorance of fools" (XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX). ... "[34]

God enlighten us better and better.

a, 2,3) Conclusion on the lawfulness of the death penalty in the New Testament.

E. Christian Brugger, while in favor of the inadmissibility of the death penalty, states: "The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be hardly any doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by New Testament authors."[35] The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be no doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by the New Testament authors and especially by the New Testament Author.

The image we invariably receive when the New Testament recounts meetings with civil authorities in which death is at stake is that of a normal judicial practice, which is questioned only when it is thought to be unfairly exercised.[36] ... therefore the statement of Pope Francis that: the death penalty is a penalty contrary to the Gospel, because it means suppressing a life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which only God is the true judge and guarantor .[37]

Cardinal Dulles states: "No passage from the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty."[38]

The New Testament does not condemn the death penalty but rather takes it for granted and indeed in some of its passages it legitimizes it; the New Testament therefore fully accepts what the Old Testament basically states in this regard, namely that the death penalty is fully legitimate in some cases.

Bessette and Feser in a large study on the death penalty were able to affirm that the clear and consistent teaching of the Scriptures is that capital punishment is in principle legitimate. Since the Church holds that Scriptural teaching on matters of faith and morals is divinely inspired and inerrant, we also conclude that, for this reason alone, the radical claim that capital punishment is always and in principle wrong is simply contrary to the Catholic Orthodoxy and this judgment is further strengthened by the coherent teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, of the Popes and of authoritative ecclesiastical documents, that is, by the Tradition which is clearly in this same line.[39]

Card. Journet was able to significantly affirm, in this line: "Yes l'Évangile interdit aux États d'appliquer jamais la peine de mort, saint Paul lui-même alors a trahi l'Évangile"[40] whose Italian translation is: "If the Gospel prohibits States from applying the death penalty, then St. Paul himself has betrayed the Gospel" (my translation) ... therefore the statement of Pope Francis is removed from all foundations that: the death penalty is a penalty contrary to the Gospel, because it means suppressing a life which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which only God is the true judge and guarantor.

As the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church says in n. 380: "The submission, not passive, but for reasons of conscience (cf. Rom 13,5: 13,1), to the established power responds to the order established by God. St. Paul defines the relations and duties of Christians towards the authorities (cf. Rom. 7- 12,17). ... The Apostle certainly does not intend to legitimize all power, but rather to help Christians "to do good before all men" (Rom 13,4:1), even in relations with authority, insofar as it is at the service of God for the good of the person (cf. Rom 2,1: 2; 3,1 Tim 13,4: 1-2,13; Tit 1: 2,14) and "for the just condemnation of those who do evil" (Rom 1: 2,17). St. Peter exhorts Christians to be "subject to every human institution for the love of the Lord" (1 Pt 2,15:XNUMX). The king and his governors have the task of "punishing the evildoers and rewarding the good" (XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX). Their authority must be "honored" (cf. XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX), that is, recognized, because God demands an upright behavior, which shuts "the mouth to the ignorance of fools" (XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX). ... " [41]

In a very significant passage from Evangelium Vitae s. John Paul II states: “40. From the sacredness of life springs his inviolability, inscribed from the beginning in the heart of man, in his conscience. … The commandment relating to the inviolability of human life resounds at the center of the "ten words" in the Covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34, 28). ... the overall message, which it will be up to the New Testament to bring to perfection, is a strong appeal to respect the inviolability of physical life and personal integrity, and has its apex in the positive commandment which obliges us to take charge of our neighbor as a yourself: "You will love your neighbor as yourself" (Lv 19, 18). … Thus the commandment of God to safeguard the life of man has its deepest aspect in the need for veneration and love towards each person and his life. This is the teaching that the apostle Paul, echoing the word of Jesus (cf. Mt 19, 17-18), addresses to the Christians of Rome ... (Rm 13, 9-10). "[42] It should be noted that the words of St. John Paul II do not mean that the New Testament has canceled the death penalty, this would be absolutely contrary to Tradition and biblical truth, the text of the Polish pope simply highlights how the Old Testament clearly presents the death penalty as lawful and how the Gospel mitigated the penalties established in the Old Testament, while preserving the death penalty, in fact, always in Evangelium Vitae we read, in line with the Gospel and Tradition: "... the extent and quality of the penalty must be carefully evaluated and decided, and they must not reach the extreme extent of the suppression of the offender except in cases of absolute necessity, that is, when the defense of society was not possible otherwise "[43]

As this encyclical also states: "However, in the face of the many and often dramatic cases that individual and social life presents, the reflection of believers has tried to reach a more complete and profound understanding than what the commandment of God forbids and prescribes "[44]

The commandment: do not kill was therefore interpreted in depth, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in particular by the Church, given the importance of this commandment, in order to know well the will of God contained in it. This interpretation, also carried out on the Gospel texts, clearly means that there is a true right to self-defense, that there is also a duty of legitimate defense for those who are responsible for the lives of others and that there is also a right of society to self-defense. (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church nn. 2263.2265) as Evangelium Vitae clearly states: “Undoubtedly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to bring love to oneself no less than to others establish a true right to self defense. ... Therefore, no one could renounce the right to defend himself for lack of love for life or for himself, but only by virtue of a heroic love ... On the other hand, "legitimate defense can be not only a right, but a serious duty, for those who are responsible for the life of others, for the common good of the family or the civil community "(cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2265)"[45]

Obviously, legitimate defense can determine the death of the aggressor and the sound biblical interpretation teaches that: in this case: "... the mortal outcome must be attributed to the same aggressor who exposed himself to it with his action with his action, even in the in the event that he was not morally responsible for lack of the use of reason. "[46]  We are therefore fully within biblical wisdom following this line of ecclesial interpretation of the commandment not to kill ... and we are equally fully within biblical wisdom following this line of ecclesial interpretation of the commandment not to kill when this interpretation says that within the horizon of the lawfulness of legitimate defense is the lawfulness of the death penalty ...

In fact, it says s. John Paul II, after having fixed the biblical horizon of the lawfulness of self-defense: "56. The problem of the death penalty is also placed in this horizon ..."

The death penalty is placed within the biblical horizon for which legitimate defense is legitimate, therefore we are not outside the Bible or against the Bible when we affirm the lawfulness, in some cases, of the death penalty, but we are in the Bible, in biblical wisdom, in the right biblical interpretation… and therefore we are in the Gospel, in the evangelical wisdom and in the right interpretation of the Gospel. The death penalty does not go against the Gospel ... for 2000 years the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and in the light of the Gospel, has affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty.

What we have said and what we will see further confirms that Pope Francis' statement that: the death penalty is a penalty contrary to the Gospel, because it means suppressing a life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of the which only God is true judge and guarantor.[47] The statements of Pope Francis are a very serious insult to the Holy Spirit who for 2000 years has guided Popes and Doctors of the Church and who has led them in the light of true evangelical wisdom to clearly affirm the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases.

May God arise and his enemies be scattered (Ps. 67 (68)

b) Teachings of the principal Fathers and Doctors, in particular of St. Tommaso d 'Aquino, on the death penalty.

God enlighten us better and better.

The legitimacy operated by the N. Testament regarding the death penalty is received very clearly by the Fathers of the Church, Cardinal Dulles in fact continues by saying: "Returning to the Christian Tradition, we can see that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are almost unanimous in supporting the capital punishment, even if some of them - such as Saint Ambrose (339 c.-397) - exhort the clerics not to pronounce death sentences or to serve as executors. "[48]

Brugger writes: “For the Fathers of the early Church, the authority of the state to kill malefactors is taken for granted. Opinions differed on whether Christians should hold offices whose responsibilities include the judging and carrying out of capital punishments — pre-Constantinian authors said they should not, those writing after ad 313 said they should — but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned. "[49]

For the early Church Fathers, the authority of the state to kill evildoers is taken for granted. Opinions diverged as to whether Christians were to hold offices whose responsibilities included the judgment and carrying out of the death penalty, in fact the pre-Constantinian authors said they shouldn't, those who wrote after the 313 edict said they should; but the principled legitimacy of capital punishment itself is never questioned.

Brugger clearly shows in his book the various affirmations of the Fathers on the question of the death penalty and shows precisely how they unanimously affirm the lawfulness of the death penalty.[50]

Regarding this unanimous consensus, it is necessary to remember what the First Vatican Council affirms “… no one should be allowed to interpret this Scripture…. against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. "[51] .

I emphasize again with all the force that I am not saying here, nor has the Church ever said, that the death penalty is always lawful but that in some very particular and particularly serious cases it is lawful. We all know very well that in many or many cases the powerful kill their opponents by covering themselves with the mantle of "justice" through controlled trials and unjust death sentences and that often it is the weakest and most defenseless who are sentenced to death precisely because they do not have been able to defend himself effectively in trial etc .; Christian wisdom is certainly very well aware of all this… but it is also aware of the fact that in some very particular and particularly serious cases the death penalty is lawful, as we are seeing.

b, 1) Pre-Constantinian Fathers.

Let's say first of all that, as H. Giudice affirmed: “En los diversos escritores cristianos de los cinco primeros siglos se consensus en reconocer el origen divino de la autoridad civil y por lo tanto para obedecer las leyes justas. Fuera de las aplicaciones injustas, the justificación of the penal system is rooted in the need to put a brake on violence. Según Ireneo, the existencia del pecado hizo necesario el ejercicio de la autoridad punitiva. Para el Crisóstomo this institución no only está ligada al pecado fino que hace a la concepción del orden. "[52] In the various Christian writers of the first five centuries there is a consensus in recognizing the divine origin of civil authority and therefore in obeying just laws. Outside of unjust applications, the justification of the penal system lies in the need to stop the violence. According to Irenaeus, the existence of sin made it necessary to exercise punitive authority. For Chrysostom, this institution is not only linked to sin but also to the conception of order.

These statements of Judge appear of extreme importance ... I repeat: in the various Christian writers of the first five centuries there is a consensus in recognizing the divine origin of civil authority ... I invite you to reflect deeply on this point ...

We find the same statements, but developed, in Brugger's text: "If we grant two Patristic assumptions, namely, that political power is divinely instituted and that inherent in that power is the right to kill malefactors, then the idea that the exercise of political power is incompatible with membership in God's special community, the Church, suffers from an obvious tension. "[53]

Two patristic presuppositions must be kept in mind: political power is divinely instituted, inherent in that power is the right to kill criminals. These two presuppositions practically eliminate the idea that the exercise of political power and therefore of the death penalty is incompatible with belonging to the Church. State power is instituted by God and by God it has the right to kill evildoers, so the death penalty is lawful in some cases.

Furthermore, as regards the pre-Constantinian Fathers, it seems to me important to highlight what Brugger says, who in his text has created a large collection of texts by these Fathers and therefore speaks from above of a remarkable competence: the Fathers of the II and 1rd century rarely address the morality of the death penalty directly, so we have to infer their ideas by inference; three beliefs recognizable in patristic texts as early as the second century deserve attention: (2) that civil rulers have morally legitimate authority over life and death; (3) that this authority has been conferred by God and is testified to in the Scriptures; and (XNUMX) that Christian discipleship is incompatible with participation in violence and bloodshed.[54]

It must be said, however, that this incompatibility is well understood if one considers that the authors who are cited were subjects of a radically anti-Christian empire, placing oneself directly at the service of such an empire and condemning to death or killing on the basis of the laws of such an empire meant putting oneself in the service of an antichrist and then kill in his name.

In summary, the quotations reported by Brugger and by me elaborated and clarified regarding the affirmations of the pre-Constantinian Fathers and on which his judgment is based are the following:

- s. Justin (died about 165 AD): Justin Martyr, “The First Apology”, ch. 2,3,11,68 [55]; the works of s. Giustino can be consulted online for free in volume 6 of the Greek Patrology which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/graeca/#t006;

- Athenagoras (lived in the 1nd century): Athenagoras, “A Plea for the Christians”, ch. 2,3, 35, XNUMX[56]; the works of Athenagoras present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted online for free in volume 6 of the Greek Patrology which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/graeca/#t006

- s. Irenaeus (born between 140 and 160, date of death uncertain): Irenaeus of Lyons, “Against Heresies”, bk. 4, ch. 36, par. 6; bk. 5, ch. 24, par. 2[57]; the works of s. Irenaeus present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted online for free in volume 7 of the Greek Patrology which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/graeca/#t006

- Clemente Alessandrino (born between 145 and 150 - died between 211 and 217): Clement of Alexandria, “Stromateis”, bk. 1, ch. 27, para. 171- 173[58]  bk. 4, ch. 24[59], “Paidagogos”, bk. 1, ch. 8; bk. 3, ch. 8[60] ; the works of Clemente Alessandrino present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted online for free in the volumes 8-9 of the Greek Patrology which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/graeca/#t006

- Tertullian (born around 155 - died after 220): Tertullian, “De Idololatria”, ch. 17[61]; "De Idolatria", ch. 19[62] ; "De Corona", ch. 11.2 and 11.4–5[63] ; "De Spectaculis", ch. 19[64] ; "Scorpiace", ch. 14[65]; "De Anima", ch. 56[66]; "Treatise on the Resurrection", n. 16 (ed. Ernest Evans, London: SPCK, 1960 p. 42; PL. 2, 814 ff); "Apology", ch. 4.9[67]; Tertullian's works can be consulted online for free in volumes 1-2 of the Latin Patrology which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/latina/

- Origen (born in 185 - died in 253): Origenes "In Jeremiam" Homilia XII (PG, vol. 13, col. 386b)., "In Leviticum" Homilia XI (PG, vol. 12, col. 532- 533 ). “In Leviticum” Homilia XIV (PG, vol. 12, col. 557a – b); “Contra Celsum”, bk. 7, ch. 26, bk. 8, ch. 65 and 73, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953; PG. 11, 1458, 1614ss; 1626ss); In Matthaeum Tomus X, 21 (PG, vol. 13, col. 890b); “In Epist. ad Romanos "Lib. VI, 7 (PG, vol. 14, col. 1073a); "Comment. In Epist. ad Rom. " Lib. IX (PG, vol. 14, col. 1228b); the works of Origen present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted online for free in the volumes 11-17 of the Greek Patrology which can be found on this site http://patristica.net/graeca/#t006

- s. Cyprian (born in 200 and died around 258 AD): Cyprian, “Epistle 60, to Cornelius”, par. 2 [68] ; "Ad Donatum", ch. 7; the works of s. Cyprian can be consulted online for free in volumes 3-4 of the Latin Patrology which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/latina/ and in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum http://www.earlymedievalmonasticism.org /Corpus-Scriptorum-Ecclesiasticorum-Latinorum.html

- the Didascalia Apostolorum (early 6rd century): “Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum”, lib. IV, chap. 4, no. 1, ed. FX Funk, vol. 1905 (Paderborn, 224), 00 available for free on this website archive.org, https://archive.org/details/didascaliaetconXNUMXfunkgoog)

- s. Ippolito: St. Hippolytus of Rome: “The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome”, part II, ch. 16, articles 17–19, ed. Gregory Dix, reissued by Henry Chadwick (London: SPCK, 1968), 26–27); the works of s. Hippolytus present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted online for free in volume 10 of the Greek Patrology which is found on this site http://patristica.net/graeca/#t006

- Minucius Felix (lived in the II-III century): Minucius Felix, “Octavius”, ch. 30 ([69]; the works of Minucio Felice can be consulted online for free in volume no. 3 of the Latin Patrology which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/latina/;

- Lactantius (lived in the III-IV century): Lactantius, “Divinae Institutiones”, lib. VI, chap. 20 [70] [71] ; "De Ira", lib. 17[72] Lattanzio's works can be consulted online for free in volumes 6-7 of the Patrologia Latina which can be found on the Patristica.net site at this address http://patristica.net/latina/;

- the Synod of Elvira which states in Canon 73: if someone through accusation or denunciation causes another person to be exiled or sentenced to death, he must be refused the sacraments even at the end of his life: "Delator si quis exstiterit fidelis, et per delationem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus vel interfectus, placuit eum nec in finem accipere communionem, "(PL, vol. 84, 309c; https://books.google.it/books?id=mObNin3ReVIC&redir_esc=y ).

Some clarifications regarding the texts just presented.

1) Irenaeus of Lyons at the end of the s. II, in his controversy with the Gnostics, is the first of the Fathers to comment on the Pauline text of Rm 13; he states that the kingdoms of the earth were established by God and not by the devil; therefore he relies on the authority of St. Paul and explains that one must be subjected to all the higher authorities, because there is no authority that does not come from God and those that exist have been ordained by God; the state power not in vain carries the sword in fact he is God's minister, in fact he exercises vengeance for the punishment of those who work badly; this is also the reason why you have to pay taxes, because power is God's minister, charged with fulfilling this task [73] The text of s. Irenaeus in no way condemns capital punishment but implies it as just and willed by God.

2) Noteworthy is the fact that, according to Brugger, Origen in the Contra Celso[74] would argue that St. Paul's teaching in Romans 13 implies that civil authority has legitimate power over life and death.[75] it seems to me that it is rather Origen's comment on the letter to the Romans that speaks of this implication (cf. Origen "Comment on the letter to the Romans" PG 14, 1226-1228)

3) As Brugger explains by reporting the doctrine of Clement of Alexandria: when the law sees a person in an apparently incurable state, immersed up to the neck in crime, in the concern that others may be infected by him, it kills him for the maximum health of all[76]. This punishment, Brugger continues citing Clement, also serves to control the rebellious tendencies of others, in this line what the Bible says is implemented: fear of the Lord generates wisdom; Clemente states in this line that the death penalty is good for its beneficiary, the laws that inflict death act as a "benefactor".[77] I emphasize that I am not aware that any Father has excommunicated Clement for his affirmations about the death penalty ...

4) Regarding s. Cipriano, to the indications provided by Brugger and for which s. Cyprian shows in some cases that he fundamentally accepts the lawfulness of the death penalty, it seems useful to add that in a text attributed for a long time to himself. Cyprian but currently considered not belonging to the saint it is stated that the king must repress the theft, punish adulterers, make the wicked disappear from the earth, not allow parricides and perjurers to live, nor tolerate the impiety of children[78]. It is not known who this work belongs to at present. In a text certainly belonging to St. Cyprian, the martyr recalls the rules established by Moses with the death penalty for idolaters and commenting on the gesture with which Mattathias killed an idolater (1Macc. 2, 24), affirms that if these precepts concerning the adoration of God and the contempt of idols were observed before the advent of Jesus Christ, all the more so must they be now that He has arrived.[79] It must be said that s. Cyprian here accepts what took place in the TA but does not speak directly and clearly about the death penalty and its legitimacy, even if his words are extremely significant.[80]

5) As Thompson points out, in "De Ira Dei", Lactantius warns the Stoics and Epicureans that the death penalty is acceptable if it is rightly inflicted for the interests of good against evil[81], chap. VI, 20; Lactantius, A Treatise on the Anger of God, in “Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries”, ed. A. Cleveland Coxe (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), vol. 7, 273, 274) the text in question is also found in PL 6, 705-713. Thompson specifies that this statement by Lactantius must be combined with his other statements contrary to the death penalty present in the previous Institutions or in the subsequent Epitome of the Divine Institutions. ... (Thompson "Augustine and the Death Penalty" Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 190-191)

6) The text of the Council of Elvira must be understood considering that the informers, or sycophants were already considered evil for the common morality of those times and with some emperors for a certain type of informing the death penalty was foreseen [82]  , the slanderous denunciation, in particular, is a harmful lie and precisely inasmuch as it leads to death or serious damage for the victim is an evident sin of particular gravity, particularly serious for the Christian community was the denunciation with which the Christians who made known to the authorities the names of other Christians in their communities and therefore had them put to death. These informers, who acted for profit or to acquire power, undoubtedly carried out a very serious act worthy of very serious penance, and therefore the very serious condemnation issued by the Council appears in a certain way justified. The text in question is not a radical and absolute condemnation of the death penalty but only of the crime of informing indicated. In Treccani we read: “The Christians of the first centuries suffered a lot for the work of the delatores. The ancient "penitential canons" contained 10 very severe penalties against informers. "[83]

7) Thompson on p. 191 of the cited article (Thompson "Augustine and the Death Penalty" Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 191), believes that Brugger's statement is correct that three fundamental data appear recognizable in the patristic texts: (1) that civil rulers they have a morally legitimate authority over life and death; (2) that this authority has been conferred by God and is testified to in the Scriptures; and (3) that Christian discipleship is incompatible with participation in violence and bloodshed.[84] Thompson also agrees with Brugger's opposition to Compagnoni's point of view, the latter in fact believed that Ambrose, Augustine and the post-Constantine church in supporting the death penalty were simply capitulating to the new situation created with the creation of a Christian empire. (Thompson "Augustine and the Death Penalty" Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 191)

God enlighten us better and better.

b, 2) Post-Constantinian Fathers.

With regard to the post-Constantinian Fathers it must be said that Saint Hilary of Poitiers, in his comments on Saint Matthew, indicates that there are two types of legitimate uses of the sword and therefore there are two types of legitimate killings: those that are carried out to carry out a judgment of the legitimate authority, those that are carried out in the need to resist the brigands [cf. Hilaire de Poitiers, Sur Matthieu, éd. et trad. J. Doignon, Cerf, 1979 (Sources chrétiennes no. 258), t. 2, p. 243, XXXII, 2).].[85] It is not known that any Father has excommunicated St. Hilary for these statements, yet we know that the Fathers had the Holy Spirit and condemned errors very strongly. Evidently this doctrine was already well rooted in the heart of Christianity and was not a novelty but rather re-proposed what the Bible affirms. The works of s. Ilario present in the Latin Patrology can be consulted at this site, vols. 10-11 http://patristica.net/latina/

St. Ambrose replying to the Study clearly specifies Catholic doctrine and Tradition with regard to judges: “De quo etiam ego vererer responsum referre: constrictus altero, quod est commissum vobis propter custodiam legum; altero autem propter misericordiam et gratiam, nisi de hoc Apostolicam haberes auctoritatem: Quia non sine causa gladium portat, qui ju dicat (Rom. XIII, 4); Dei enim vindex est in eos, qui male agunt. Nam sunt, extra Ecclesiam tamen, qui eos in communionem non vocent sacramentorum coelestium, qui in aliquos capitalm sententiam ferendam æstimaverunt. Plerique etiam sponte se abstinent: et laudantur quidem, nec ipsi eos possumus non prædicare: qui auctoritatem Apostoli eatenus observamus, ut iis communionem non audeamus negare. - 5. Vides igitur quid auctoritas tribuat, quid suadeat misericordia. Excusationem habebis, si feceris: laudem, si non feceris. " (S. Ambrogio "Epist. Ad Studium" PL t. XVI, col. 1040 A)

Precisely based on the authority of the affirmations of St. Paul (Rom 13: 4) s. Ambrose affirms that judges can receive the Eucharist, in fact they are ministers of God.

There are some, continues the s. Doctor, strangers to the Church, who deny the Sacraments to those who impose death sentences (probably, as Migne notes, he refers to the Novatians, who precisely excluded judges from Eucharistic Communion[86] but precisely on the basis of the clear text of St. Paul s. Ambrose believes that it cannot be denied that those who carry out judicial activities and impose capital punishment are in the communion of the Church and can receive the Eucharist. Some of them refrain from receiving this sacrament and are praised for this, while others receive it lawfully. From God they have the authority to issue death sentences, therefore they cannot be considered public sinners and therefore they can receive the Eucharist.

St. Ambrose then develops a reflection on the basis of Jn. 8 which invites us not to shed blood and therefore not to impose the death penalty so that the offender repents and his soul is saved, so this holy Bishop and Doctor of the Church offers us a very important clarification on Catholic Tradition, in fact he states: "Et ideo majores maluerunt indulgentiores esse circa judices; ut dum gladius eorum timetur, reprimeretur seleerum furor, et non incitaretur: quod si negaretur communio, videretur criminosorum vindicata poena. Maluerunt igitur priores nostra, ut in voluntate magis abstinentis, quam in necessitate sit legis. " (Cf. "Epist. Ad Studium" PL t. XVI, col. 1042)

The Catholic Tradition was in the sense of being more indulgent towards the judges because while their sword is feared, the wrath of the wicked is repressed and not incited; to deny them Communion would seem like a revenge of criminals against such judges. Our fathers preferred, therefore, to leave freedom to communicate themselves to the judges, praising, however, in particular, as we have seen, those who abstained from this sacrament; in this way the question had to be resolved not by the law but by the conscience and therefore by the will of the subject.

Moreover, the judge is not permitted to refrain from punishing the guilty, even with the death penalty, in many legal cases, since he is at the service of the law, also affirms s. Ambrose (see “Super Psalmum XXXVII”, 51, PL XIV, 1035s).[87]

The works of s. Ambrose present in the Latin Patrology can be consulted on this site, vols. 14-17 http://patristica.net/latina/

Saint John Chrysostom, speaking of parricide, says Dunot, appears to be a supporter of capital punishment as he affirms that: a man so degraded, that is, a parricide, is not enough to have him banished from the city, it is still necessary to make him disappear from the light; such a man, in fact, is a common enemy of all men and of God, therefore we must all participate in the extermination of him, in order to purify the city. (S. Giovanni Chrisostomo, Œuvres complètes, transl. M. Jeannin, L. Guérin & Cie éditeur, Clermont-Bar-le-Duc-Paris, 1865, t. 5, p. 456.]. (4th speech on Genesis , § 3)[88]

In the Sermons on the statues of s. John Chrysostom, as Brugger explains, shows that he fully accepts the legitimacy of the death penalty but on the other hand shows the action of him and others so that the emperor does not intervene to punish the criminals who, in this specific case, had committed serious acts against the statues of the emperor and his family[89] The works of s. Giovanni Crisostomo present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted at this site, vols. 47-64, http://patristica.net/graeca/

Eusebius of Caesarea, Brugger points out, equally considers the death penalty as lawful in some cases and praises the Emperor Constantine in this regard for his work of justice which, despite being carried out mostly with benevolence and without the use of the sword , in some cases he evidently required the use of it, as in the case of the execution of Licinius and his advisers.[90]  The works of Eusebius present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted on this site, vols. 19-24 http://patristica.net/graeca/

In this same line, fundamentally, yes also goes. Gregorio Nazianzeno who while urging a Christian magistrate to exercise restraint in the punishment of criminals, he shows to recognize that in some cases the sword of authority rightly strikes criminals for their crimes.[91] The works of s. Gregorio Nazianzeno present in the Greek Patrology can be consulted at this site, vols. 35-38 http://patristica.net/graeca/

S. Ottato di Milevi, as H. Giudice explains[92] , should be included among the supporters of the use of force and the death penalty. In fact, S. Ottato took on the defense of the emperor's soldiers who, sent to distribute food during a period of deprivation, killed some Donatist rebels.

St. Octatus indicates that both the commandment that forbids killing (Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17; Mt 5:21) and the one that orders to punish certain actions come from the same God (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10 ) the saint further observes that some evils are done with an evil end and others are done with a good end so the brigand performs evil for an evil end while the judge carries out his rigorous duty with good end when he becomes avenger of the guilt perpetrated by the bandit; the Donatists who were killed had themselves been the cause of their death, the imperial official Macario acted in defense of the rights of God in a similar way to Moses and Elía who also applied the death penalty; Ottato assumes Macarius's defense against the Donatist accusations, recognizing that it would have been a grave sense of guilt if Macarius had acted of his own free will on what he had to do but in reality the imperial official acted as the executor of God's will. ( S. Ottato, “De schismate donatistarum” 3, 5-7 PL 11, 1013ss).

I point out that s. Ottato is a saint and it is not known that St. Augustine or some other Bishop excommunicated Ottato because he was in favor of the death penalty ... Ottato, for the record, wrote before s. Agostino… The works of s. Ottato present in the Latin Patrology can be consulted at this site, vol. 11 http://patristica.net/latina/

St. Augustine (354-430) appears, among all the Fathers, the one who speaks the most on this subject. St. Augustine, says Thompson, specifies that the death penalty can only be inflicted by the competent authorities to promote the common good of society and as a deterrent to further criminal actions, it is an unusual measure that should only be used in cases of extreme necessity. where there is no other option; the Church can and must be a strong advocate of mercy for the condemned, because God is just and can forgive sinners. (Thompson "Augustine and the Death Penalty" Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 198)

In this line s. Agostino, as Thompson explains, in the face of the attacks of the Donatists affirms that they should not be punished with the death penalty: "The death penalty cannot be applied because he would rather free all the Donatists who have murdered and persecuted Catholics than exact their blood in revenge .[93]"

In particular he says s. Augustine: "Not that we do not want to prevent the freedom to commit crimes from being taken away from wicked individuals, but we wish that for this purpose it is enough that, by leaving them alive and without mutilating them in any part of the body, by applying the repressive laws they are diverted from their insane agitation to be led back to a healthy and peaceful life, or that, withdrawn from their evil works, they are engaged in some useful work. … Indign yourself against iniquity so as not to forget humanity; do not vent the voluptuousness of revenge against the atrocities of sinners, but turn your will to heal their wounds "[94]. St. Augustine, as a minister of God, interpreting the divine will in the specific case says that God does not want the death penalty to be applied to them, as a kind of retaliation penalty, which Jesus had practically abrogated. But the affirmation of s. Augustine on that occasion is a judgment concerning that specific situation, it is not a judgment of radical condemnation of the death penalty, in fact, St. Augustine, in many of his works affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty.

More precisely, s. Augustine, in the light of God's will, invites us to save the life of the criminal as much as possible but he clearly admits that in some cases God himself wants the imposition of the death penalty and then the use of this penalty will be fully consistent with the charity of Christ therefore St. Augustine, in many of his works affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty.

As Thompson says: yes. Augustine already recognizes in "DeOrdine" (386) that the executioner is an "ugly office", but necessary for a "well-governed" state; Thompson cites various works by St. Augustine who evidently go along this line[95]. Thompson himself adds that this position of Augustine is based on the Holy Scriptures, many stories in the Old Testament suggest that "noble and holy men inflicted death as a punishment for sin"; in this line s. Augustine affirms that whoever executes a death sentence is not guilty of a sin. (Thompson "Augustine and the Death Penalty" Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 197) St. Augustine accepts the right to criminal punishments including capital execution also as part of the pax Romana; according to the s. African doctor, the state authorities have the duty to stabilize the life of the community and give peace to it.

More precisely …

In the "Deorder" s. Augustine states: “What is darker than an executioner? What is more grim and brutal than his mentality? However, he has an indispensable place among the laws and falls within the order of a well-governed state. And although he does harm in his own soul, it is nevertheless the punishment of the evildoers for an order alien to him. "[96]

In the "City of God", St. Augustine states: “The divine magisterium itself made exceptions to the law not to kill. Except for cases of individuals whom God orders to kill either by established law or by express command temporarily addressed to a person. He therefore does not kill those who owe the service to the magistrate. It is like the sword that is the instrument of the one who uses it. Therefore they do not in any way transgress the commandment with which it was enjoined not to kill those who made war by command of God or, representing the force of public power, according to its laws, that is, according to an order of just reason, they punished the delinquents with death. ... With the exception of these cases, in which a just law in general or in particular God, the very source of justice, command to kill, whoever kills himself or another individual is responsible for the crime of murder. "[97]. Therefore it is not a sin to give the death penalty in some cases, this is decisive for understanding the true Augustinian thought: the death penalty can be imposed without sin and, as we will see clearly later, according to God's will.

It also explains the same s. African doctor in a letter to Publicola that: "I do not like the opinion that one can kill people in order not to be killed by them, unless it is a soldier or someone who is obliged to public service, except that one acts not for himself, but in defense of others or of the State to which he belongs, if he is legitimately authorized and his action is consistent with his function. "[98]

In a long letter to Macedonio, vicar of Africa, St. Augustine broadly develops the arguments justifying the death penalty, and therefore the power to keep alive or to give death (vitae necisque legitimam potestatem, Ep, 153, 8) St. Augustine explains that the judges: "... in fulfilling their office must not be motivated by personal resentments, but 'only executors of the laws; they must punish not the injustices perpetrated against themselves but those of others ... they must consider that they themselves need the mercy of God because of their personal sins and they must not think that they are failing in their duty if they indulge the people over whom they have the power of life and death. "[99]

In the episode of the adulterous woman, St. Augustine, Jesus Christ: "... she did not disapprove of the law that prescribed the death penalty for women guilty of adultery, but at the same time, with fear, she called to compassion those in whose judgment she could be sentenced to death."[100].

The S. African doctor then specifies that: "... the power of the sovereign, the right of life and death proper to the judge, the torture hooks of the executioner, the weapons of the soldiers, the power to punish proper to the sovereign have not been instituted without a purpose , and even the severity of a good family man. All these systems have their own norms, their causes, their reason, their usefulness. When they are feared, not only are the wicked held in check, but the good themselves live more peacefully among the wicked. ... however, it is not useless to repress the arrogance and arrogance of men also through the fear that human laws inspire, so that not only the innocent feel safe in the midst of evildoers but, while the fear of punishment is put a stop to their possibility of doing harm, their will be healed by resorting to God's help. "

Continue s. Augustine: “Your severity is also useful, with which our tranquility is also ensured; however, our intercession with which your severity is mitigated is also useful. ... Even the apostle Paul frightened the wicked not only with the future judgment, but also with your judicial power by asserting that it too falls within the order desired by divine providence ... These words of the Apostle demonstrate the usefulness of your severity. … Do not do anything out of desire to harm, but for the sake of helping, and nothing cruel, nothing inhuman will be done. ... If then the perversion and impiety are so great that neither punishment nor forgiveness helps to correct them, the good do nothing but fulfill the precept to love with the right intention and with the conscience that God knows, both when they punish both when they forgive. "[101]

It is evident, on the part of the s. Doctor, the commitment to direct Christian judges on the path of justice, on the path of justice that comes from God, so that in this light they know how to judge, with mercy and justice, people and therefore apply the various penalties with extreme prudence. that of death, the latter, in particular, must be imposed as an extreme ratio. Particularly illuminating in this line is the following Augustinian text: "Some great and holy men ... have punished some sins with death, so that the living might arouse a healthy fear and those who were punished with death would not harm death itself , but the sin that could increase if they continued to live. They did not judge recklessly because God had given them such a judgment. ... So after having taught them what it means to love one's neighbor as oneself, even with the infusion of the Holy Spirit ... there was no lack of such punishments, although much more rarely than in the Old Testament. Then mainly as slaves they were enslaved with fear, then mainly with love they were raised as children. In fact, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, at the words of the apostle Peter Ananias and his wife fell lifeless and were not resurrected but buried ... "[102] The work of s. Augustine therefore goes in the sense of helping men and women to let themselves be guided by God so that the death penalty is applied when God wills and not when He does not want it and precisely in some particular cases, even after the coming of Christ, God wants it to be imposed. penalty.

St. Augustine is therefore not an abolitionist of the death penalty, he fully accepts it but only in cases where God really wants it!

The great biblical scholar, St. Girolamo, appears clearly and strongly supported for the lawfulness of the death penalty. As Dunot reminds us, of which I quote the quotations[103], s. Jerome has justified the application of the death penalty several times, albeit more concisely than s. Augustine. In his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, he is interested in affirming the innocence of the judge who imposes the penalty: the judge is not guilty of the crime when he has chained the wicked and encloses them and declares them guilty by virtue of his authority (cf. . “In Galatas” PL XVI, 367s) For s. Jerome: whoever strikes the wicked because of their malice, and holds the tools of death to kill the wicked, is the minister of the Lord: "Qui igitur malos percutit in eo quod mali sunt, et habet vasa interfectionis, ut occidat pessimos, minister est Domains. (“In Ézéchielem”, III, 9 PL XXV, 85) In the “Commentary on Joel” s. Jerome states that those who punish evildoers are ministers and executors of God's wrath against those who do evil, and it is not without reason that they carry the sword (cf. "In Joelem", PL XXV 973), He is not cruel who kills cruel people also says s. Jerome: "Non est enim crudelis qui crudeles jugulat sed quod crudelis patientibus esse videatur"[104]; the king's task is to do justice, therefore to punish murders, sacrileges and adulterers with death is not to shed blood, it is the ministry of laws (cf. “In Hieremiam” IV, 22,3, PL 24, 811).

Unfortunately, Brugger only reports one of s's statements. Jerome, I only find one in a note[105]

The Apostolic Constitutions, written at the end of the fourth century and whose influence on the legal texts will be considerable, repeat only what the Fathers said: murder is not reprehensible, but only the murder of innocent people, and the murder permitted by law is reserved for magistrates only[106]

I have inserted the affirmations of the Popes of this patristic period in the part relating to the papal and magisterial affirmations ... but here I want to note that St. Gregory the Great, Pope, Father and Doctor of the Church, teaches the legitimacy of capital punishment in several of his letters, recognizing that serious crimes deserve such punishment[107], as we will see better later.

Many of these texts by the Fathers of the Church are well known to theologians and canonists and were largely incorporated into the decree of Gratian[108], a question of which is explicitly devoted to the lawfulness of the death sentence (C. 23, q. 5) [109].

The fundamental position of acceptance of the death penalty that we see affirmed by the Fathers will be maintained and developed by the Popes who will deal with this topic. [110]

I note that in some authors of our times we notice a criticism of the post-Constantinian Fathers because in his opinion they would have succumbed to the Constantinian military power and would have accepted the death penalty that the pre-Constantinian Fathers did not accept. This position seems to me contrary to the reality of things and in this sense I follow Thompson who agrees with Brugger's opposition to Compagnoni's point of view, the latter in fact believed that Ambrose, Augustine and the post-Constantine church in supporting the penalty of death were simply capitulating to the new situation created with the creation of a Christian empire. (Thompson "Augustine and the Death Penalty" Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 191)

I add that it is evident that the post-Constantinian Fathers had the certainty of following the true doctrine of the Church of all time and of following the Tradition otherwise they would not have said what they said. Several Fathers are Doctors of the Church and above all they do not generally attack the leaders of peoples for the death penalty, they do not deny it in general, they can do it concretely, particularly in certain situations, but they do not deny that there is such a right. by the heads of states, nor am I aware that there was any Father who accused others of having betrayed, of having denied the Tradition in particular for having supported the lawfulness of the death penalty ... so for them it was consistent with the sound doctrine who affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty in general.

I repeat: no Father who was in favor of the death penalty was accused for this of heresy ... or of opposition to Tradition ... indeed, as we have seen, it was groups outside the Church that prevented judges from receiving the Eucharist ...

The affirmations of the Bible and in particular of St. Paul were evidently too clear and strong for the true Church and its Bishops to absolutely deny the lawfulness of the death penalty; and on biblical affirmations, especially of St. Paul are based, as seen, two assumptions of the lawfulness of the death penalty: political power is divinely instituted, civil rulers have a morally legitimate authority over life and death in particular to punish the wicked.

In this line, the supposed opposition of the doctrine of some pre-Constantinian Fathers compared to that of some post-Constantinian Fathers seems more of a modern construction than an ancient reality ... Certainly the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as we shall see, has come to ever more clarity great on the theme, up to the great arrangement fixed by s. Thomas, but there has always been a fundamental acceptance of the possibility that the head of the community might impose the death penalty in some cases, Brugger is very clear on this point, as we have seen, and so are other authors with him.

God enlighten us better and better.

b, 3) Conclusions on the teaching of the Fathers regarding the lawfulness of the death penalty.

Drawing the conclusions regarding the teaching of the Fathers on the lawfulness of the death penalty we must therefore say that two fundamental facts appear recognizable in the patristic texts: (1) that civil rulers have a morally legitimate authority over life and death; (2) that this authority has been conferred by God and is testified to in the Scriptures (cf. E. Christian Brugger "Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition" University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 75)

Brugger adds: "If we grant two Patristic assumptions, namely, that political power is divinely instituted and that inherent in that power is the right to kill malefactors, then the idea that the exercise of political power is incompatible with membership in God's special community, the Church, suffers from an obvious tension. " [111]

Two patristic presuppositions must be kept in mind: political power is divinely instituted, inherent in that power is the right to kill criminals. These two presuppositions practically eliminate the idea that the exercise of political power and therefore of the death penalty is absolutely incompatible with belonging to the Church. State power is instituted by God and by God it has the right to kill evildoers, so the death penalty is lawful in some cases.

Cardinal Dulles said: "Returning to the Christian Tradition, we can see that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are almost unanimous in supporting the death penalty, even if some of them - such as Saint Ambrose (339 ca.-397) - they exhort clerics not to pronounce death sentences or to serve as executors. "[112]

Brugger significantly specified: “Throughout the Patristic period, as we have seen, texts that question the prerogative of civil authority to exercise the death penalty are notably absent. In those accounts that address the question directly we find a virtually unanimous acceptance of such authority. Where reasons are elaborated, this acceptance is invariably grounded in an appeal to Scripture, in particular, Romans 13. "[113] Throughout the patristic period, the texts that question the prerogative of the civil authority to exercise the death penalty are absent. In those accounts that directly address the issue we find an almost unanimous acceptance of that authority. Where reasons are elaborated, this acceptance is invariably grounded in an appeal to Scripture, especially Romans 13.

Brugger again wrote: “Among those Patristic writers… we find unanimous agreement that civil authority, as guardian of the public good, has the right to inflict punishments on evildoers, including the punishment of death. [114] Among the patristic writers we find unanimous agreement on this: the civil authority, as guardian of the public good, has the right to inflict penalties on evildoers, including the death penalty. As for the reason why the Fathers supported this affirmation it must be said that their reasons were at the same time theological, philosophical and practical: theological because these writers base their affirmations on the authority of Scripture, in particular on the writings of the apostle Paul and above all on the letter to the Romans, chap. 13; philosophical because they believed that this truth was witnessed by human reason, a reason which, as mentioned, has practically always and everywhere accepted the lawfulness of the death penalty; and practices to the extent that their beliefs reflect the historical situations in which they lived and the conventional assumptions about the nature of the authority and punishment they shared.[115]

We specify that in a beautiful article on this subject Fr. A. Bellon, after having explained who the Holy Fathers are, reports the affirmations of Fr. Congar according to which: “The unanimis consensus Patrum (the unanimous consent of the Fathers) is a sure norm. It expresses the sense of the Church, and unanimity is always the hallmark of the Holy Spirit. This is a moral consensus, which does not exclude the existence of some divergent voices. " [116]. The unanimous consent of the Fathers does not exclude the existence of some divergent voices. At the moment there do not seem to be any rumors of Fathers who radically oppose the lawfulness of the death penalty, but even if there were some rare voices truly diverging from the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, such consensus would be equally unanimous.

Regarding the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is necessary to remember what Vatican Council I affirms “… no one should be allowed to interpret this Scripture…. against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. " (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius", c. 2: DS 3007)

In this line, it seems to me that I must affirm that no one is permitted to interpret Scripture against the unanimous consent of the Fathers who affirm the fundamental lawfulness of the death penalty.

God enlighten us.

b, 4) Medieval doctors and theologians, in particular s. Thomas Aquinas.

In the Middle Ages, Cardinal Dulles points out in the line of H. Lio, the main canonists and theologians affirmed the lawfulness of civil courts to pronounce the death penalty for very serious crimes such as murder and treason; S. Anselmo, s. Albert the Great[117] s. Bonaventure, s. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus supported the lawfulness of the death penalty by basing it on the authority of Scripture and the patristic tradition, and also provided illuminating arguments from reason.[118]

Saint Bonaventure, in a sermon on the precepts, attacks the Manicheans who distort Christian thinking about the commandment prohibiting killing and rejecting the death penalty, he responds to their errors by stating that: when the minister of the law carries out the death sentence according to (just) law, it is the law that kills man for a just cause and according to the spirit of justice, so that the executioner in this case executes not out of desire for revenge, but out of love for justice.[119]

The same s. Bonaventure states: “Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod in iudicialibus praecipitur interficere maleficos; dicendum, quod nulla est ibi contradictio, quia in un prohibetur homicidium innocentis et iusti, in alio praecipitur occisio malefici. In uno etiam prohibetur homicidium ex propria auctoritate, in alio iniungitur ex auctoritate Legis; et ista duo non habent oppositionem nec repugnantiam. "[120]

St. Thomas, in particular, which the Pope says he refers to in Amoris Laetitia, writes in this regard in the Summa Theologiae: "Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, licitum est occidere animalia bruta inquantum ordinantur naturaliter ad hominum usum, sicut imperfectum ordinatur ad perfectum. Omnis autem pars ordinatur ad totum ut imperfectum ad perfectum. Et ideo omnis pars naturaliter est propter totum. Et propter hoc videmus quod si saluti totius corporis humani expediat praecisio alicuius members, puta cum est putridum et corruptivum aliorum, laudabiliter et salubriter abscinditur. Quaelibet autem persona singularis comparatur ad totam communitatem sicut pars ad totum. Et ideo si aliquis homo sit periculosus communitati et corruptivus ipsius propter aliquod peccatum, laudabiliter et salubriter occiditur, ut bonum commune conservetur, modicum enim fermentum totam massam corrumpit, ut dicitur I ad Cor. V. "(II-II, q. 64 a. 2 in c.). Therefore, if the health of the whole human body requires the cutting of a member which is gangrenous or harmful to the rest of the organism, it is commendably cut and with an advantage for health; but each individual is to the whole community as a part is to the whole, as a member is to the whole body, therefore if a man for his sins is dangerous for the community and corrupts it, it is laudable and healthy to suppress him, for the conservation of the common good; in fact, as St. Paul says (1 Cor 5: 6), "a little leaven makes the whole dough ferment". Still s. Thomas states: “Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, occidere malefactorem licitum est inquantum ordinatur ad salutem totius communitatis. Et ideo ad illum solum pertinet cui committitur cura communitatis conservandae, sicut ad medicum pertinet praecidere membrum putridum when ei commissa fuerit cura salutis totius corporis. Cura autem communis boni commissa est principibus habentibus publicam auctoritatem. Et ideo eis solum licet malefactores occidere, non autem privatis personis. "(I-II, q. 64 a. 3 in c.) Killing a criminal, as his killing is ordered to the salvation of the whole community, is a morally action lawful and belongs only to the one who is entrusted with the care of collective security.

In the "Collationes in decem praeceptis" s. Thomas states: “Quidam dixerunt hic prohibitum esse homicidium hominis omnino. Unde homicidas dicunt esse iudices saeculares, qui condemnant secundum leges aliquos. Contra quos dicit Augustinus, quod Deus per hoc praeceptum non abstulit sibi potestatem occidendi: unde Deut. XXXII, 39: ego occidam, et viviam faciam. Est ergo licitum illis here mandated Dei occidunt, quia tunc Deus facit. Omnis enim lex mandatum Dei est. Prov. VIII, 15: per me reges regnant, et legum conditores iusta decernunt. Et apostolus, Rom. XIII, 4: si malum feceris, time: non enim sine causa gladium portat, Dei enim minister est. Moysi quoque dicitur, Exod. XXII, 18: maleficos non patieris to live. Id enim quod licitum est Deo, licitum est et ministris eius, per mandatum ipsius. He constat autem quod Deus non peccat, cum lui sit auctor legum, inflicting mortem propter peccatum. Rom. VI, 23: salary sins mors. Ergo nec minister eius. Est ergo sensus: non occides. " ("Collationes in decem praeceptis", a. 7)

Some said that it was always forbidden to kill the man for which the secular judges were accused of being murderers but God did not take away from himself the power to kill and therefore it is lawful to kill by God's command, and whoever kills by God's command becomes instrument through which God kills the one who is to be killed.

Every divine law is a command from God, the leaders of the nations who according to the Truth condemn the wicked to death and kill the wicked are ministers of God (Rom 13: 4). What is lawful to God is lawful to his ministers by mandate of God. God does not sin by inflicting death for sin (Rom 6,23:XNUMX) therefore neither does the minister of God who kills by mandate of God sin. therefore the following: you will not kill by your authority.

Another particularly illuminating text about the Thomist doctrine on this subject we are dealing with is the following, which we find in the Sum against the Gentiles: "Since some despise the punishments inflicted by God, because being devoted to sensible things they pay attention only to the things that are seen. , divine providence has ordered that there are on earth men who, with sensitive and present penalties, force them to observe justice. Now, it is evident that such people do not sin when they punish the wicked. Indeed: No one sins in doing justice. But that the wicked be punished is a right thing: since, as we have seen above [c. 140], the guilt is repaired by the penalty. Therefore the judges do not sin in punishing the wicked. … 5. Just as the doctor aims at health, which consists in the orderly harmony of moods, so the ruler of the state aims at peace, which consists in the «orderly harmony of the citizens» [cf. c. 128]. .. Therefore also the ruler of the state kills evil men with justice and without sin, so that the peace of the state is not disturbed. … Because in the law which says: "Thou shalt not kill", it also adds "Do not let evildoers live" (Ex. XXII, 18). Thus making it understood that the unjust killing of men is prohibited. … The fact that the wicked can amend themselves while they are living does not mean that they can rightly be killed: since the danger deriving from their living is more serious and more certain than the hoped-for good of their amendment. "[121] As s. Thomas, therefore, the death penalty is lawful because the danger deriving from the living of the wicked is graver and more certain than the hoped-for good of their amendment. In another text, s. Thomas specifies "quicumque non cavet pericula, videtur contemnere id cuius detrimentum pericula inducere possunt" (Quodlibet III, q. 4 a. 1 ad 3) whoever does not pay attention to dangers shows that he despises what dangers can induce damage. Whoever does not pay attention, therefore, to the danger that those who have committed serious crimes can cause for a community shows that they despise the community itself and the life of those who can be killed or seriously damaged by such criminals. The death penalty is lawful because the danger deriving from the living of the wicked is graver and more certain than the hoped-for good of their amendment. If the prison system is really effective the criminal is put in prison and the danger, in a certain way, ceases but if there is no such effective system, the danger remains, and it is a danger that yes. Thomas indicates as more serious and more certain than his amendment.

May God enlighten us and make us understand that charity and with it prudence bring, as s. Thomas, to impose the death penalty: “For this reason the divine and human laws command the killing of these sinners, from whom we can expect more harm to others than to amend them. However, the judge does not do this out of hatred towards them, but out of the love of charity that makes the public good prefer to the life of a single person. Furthermore, the death inflicted by the judge also benefits the sinner: if, in fact, he is converted, his death serves the atonement of the guilt, and if he is not converted his death serves the cessation of evil, thus, in fact, it is taken away from him. the possibility of making other sins. " [122] The love of charity leads to the infliction of the death penalty in some cases for the true good of the community and also of the offender, in this line the divine and human law rightly commands to inflict the death penalty in some cases.

With regard to charity, in particular, in imposing the death penalty, St. Thomas specifies that he who carries out the task of head of the community can lawfully punish and even kill criminals, while he loves them with charity; in fact explains s. Gregory that the just carry out judicial action in charity: “Ad decimum dicendum, quod licite potest ille ad quem ex officio pertinet, malefactores punire, vel etiam occidere, eos ex charitate diligendo. Dicit enim Gregorius in quadam homilia, quod iusti persecutionem commovent, sed amantes: quia si foris increpationes per disciplinam exaggerant, intus tamen dulcedinem per caritatem servant. "(De virtutibus, q. 2 a. 8 ad 10) for charity to the evildoers for three reasons: “Primo quidem, propter eorum correctionem. Secundo, in quantum aliquorum temporalis prosperitas est in detrimentum alicuius multitudinis, vel etiam totius Ecclesiae ... Tertio, ad servandumdinem divinae iustitiae ... "(Cfr. De virtutibus, q. 2 a. 8 ad 10)

We can cause temporal evil out of charity to evildoers for three reasons: (1) to correct them, (2) as their prosperity is to the detriment of a people or the Church because if they grow up many are oppressed, (3) to preserve the order of divine justice.

I point out that according to St. Thomas, from what we have said, charity and therefore prudence lead to the act of inflicting the death penalty, in cases where it is right to do so (cf. De virtutibus, q. 2 a. 8 ad 10); not carrying out this act when it is right to do so would normally mean carrying out a serious imprudence, endangering the community and often the weakest of it.

Furthermore, it should be noted that s. In the text just seen, Thomas explains what the true functions of punishment are, that is, the purposes to which one aims when for charity a punishment is inflicted on a person.

Precise s. Thomas in another text: “A grave penalty is inflicted not only for the gravity of the fault, but also for other reasons. First, because of the magnitude of the sin: since a greater crime, all things being equal, is due a more serious penalty. Second, because of the habit of sinning: since men do not easily break away from the habit of sinning except by means of severe pains. Third, because of the intensity of lust or pleasure in sin: since even these sins men do not detach themselves without severe punishments. Fourth, for the ease of committing sin and hiding it: in fact these sins, when discovered, must be punished more severely, to scare others. "[123] In the text just seen, St. Thomas emphasizes in a particular way the exemplary and medicinal function of punishment. Instead, in the previous text he also spoke of the vengeful function of punishment. It seems to me interesting to note here that the penalty has, according to traditional doctrine, followed by s. Thomas, three functions: a vindictive function, tending to restore the broken order and atonement for the crime; an exemplary function aimed at deterring potential offenders and avoiding relapses into crime; a medicinal function that aims at the amendment of the offender, at the "conversion" of him. This doctrine has very ancient origins and can also be found in s. Gregory the Great (see Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum" l. XII, epistula 11) according to which an adequate punishment is carried out in such a way as to include both a proportionate punishment for the perpetrator and a cause for fear for those who share the order of him. [124]". The just punishment is therefore, according to St. Gregory (see Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum" l. VIII, epistula19) a punishment for which the offense done to God is repaired and the punishment inflicted is an example that induces others to correct[125]". The penalty for s. Gregory (cf. Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum” l. IX, epistula 86) has a purpose: social for which he must avoid the contagion of evil and must dissuade from carrying out evil actions; an individual purpose for which it is a duty and a punishment, so that the punishment corrects the guilt.[126]

The Bible also highlights this exemplary role of punishment: "If an unjust witness is raised against a man to accuse him of rebellion, the two men between whom there is contention will appear before the Lord, before the priests and judges who will be in function in those days. The judges will investigate carefully, and if the witness is a liar and falsely accused his brother, you will do to him what he thought to do to his brother. You will eradicate the evil in your midst. Others will hear about it, will be afraid of it and will not commit an evil deed like this in your midst again. " (Dt 19,15: 20-XNUMX)

The Bible is the beacon that guides the reflections of the great theologians, in its light the great Doctors we have seen so far have affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty, in its light too. Antoninus reaffirmed this legitimacy and rejected the error of those who affirm that the biblical precept prohibits the killing of any man, even a criminal, and who call the judges and officers who kill the guilty murderers; the holy Archbishop of Florence, in particular, opposes the authority of St. Augustine and the Scriptures, then adds that: the judges, killing the guilty according to the legal order, kill according to the mandate of God, who established the laws that order the killing of the guilty; God who gave the command not to kill did not deprive himself of the power to kill for this, as is clear from the Bible, and the judges and executioners who lawfully impose the death penalty do so precisely by mandate of God; the S. Bishop also cites the letter of St. Paul to the Romans chap. 13 to base his affirmations on biblical data.[127]

b, 5) Other more recent doctors and saints.

Later great Doctors of the Church such as St. Roberto Bellarmino[128] and St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori quietly supported the lawfulness of this penalty and with them Francisco de Vitoria[129] and Francisco Suárez[130].

St. Peter Canisius, in his Great Catechism, asks: when are we guilty of connivance with sin? And he responds by saying that we commit such a sin when we let an evil be committed with impunity or let an evil aggravate that we could or should repress or punish with the means that are proper to our authority. This is the sin of the ministers of justice who carry the sword but do not use it, that is, that they do not inflict the death penalty when necessary, and thus do not repress the criminals or those who excite the seditions.[131]

St. Robert Bellarmine affirms that it is lawful for Christian magistrates to punish the disturbance of public peace with the sword and demonstrates this lawfulness from the Scriptures, from the Fathers, from reason and refutes the errors of those who deny such lawfulness.[132]

S. Alfonso affirms regarding the death penalty “9. It is not lawful for anyone to kill another man, except by public authority, or for his own defense. For the public authority, condemned offenders can certainly be killed, as well as the proscribed ones (vulgarly it was judged), as long as they are in the territory of the proscribing prince. . "[133]

The same s. Doctor of another work: “For only two reasons it is allowed to kill one's neighbor, for public authority, and for one's own defense: for public authority, which condemns evildoers to death at the hands of the executioners; and also gives permission to everyone to kill the outlaws…. Here it should be noted 1. that clerics, even though judges, cannot sentence others to death; only they can commit such power to the laity, if they have it. It should be noted that every judge must allow time for those condemned to death to confess as well as to receive communion (N. 2.). Furthermore, it is permissible to kill the unjust aggressor to defend one's life, when there is no other way to defend oneself; so s. Thomas (10. 2. q. 2. a. 64) with the other dd. commonly, as expressed in chap. Yes true, 7. de sent. excomm., where it says: Cum vim vi repellere omnes leges, omniaque iura permittant etc. Nor does it preclude saying that the spiritual life of one's neighbor should be preferred to one's own temporal life; since (as Petrocorense and the other authors commonly answer) this occurs only when the neighbor is in extreme necessity of life; for example, we are bound even with the peril of our life to baptize a child who is in near danger of dying without baptism; but he does not run, when the aggressor voluntarily exposes himself to the danger of dying and damaging himself, because then his death is entirely attributed to his will and malice. "[134]

In the "Education to the people" s. Alfonso affirms: “… as then to the neighbor only for three reasons is it lawful to kill another man: for public authority, for one's own defense, and for the just war. For the public authority he is quite licit, indeed it is the obligation of the princes and judges to condemn the offenders to the death they deserve, and it is the obligation of the executioners to carry out the sentence. God himself wants evildoers to be punished. "[135]

I emphasize again with all the force that I am not saying here, nor has the Church ever said, that the death penalty is always lawful but that in some very particular and particularly serious cases it is lawful. We all know very well that in many or many cases the powerful kill their opponents by covering themselves with the mantle of "justice" through controlled trials and unjust death sentences and that often it is the weakest and most defenseless who are sentenced to death precisely because they do not have been able to defend himself effectively in trial etc .; Christian wisdom is certainly very well aware of all this… but it is also aware of the fact that in some very particular and particularly serious cases the death penalty is lawful, as we are seeing.

c) Magisterial and Papal teachings on the death penalty

God enlighten us better and better.

The Popes, practically up to Benedict XVI, have peacefully accepted the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases.

The legitimation operated by the Bible regarding the death penalty has been fully acknowledged by the papal Magisterium and in a text of St. Innocent I in the letter to Exsuperius, of the year 405, we read “The question arises about those who after Baptism were public administrators and used only the instruments of torture or even issued the death sentence. We do not read anything about them as defined by the ancients. It should be remembered that such powers were granted by God and that, to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, furthermore it was indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4) How could they condemn a behavior who did they see was granted by the authority of God? With regard to them, therefore, we continue to regulate ourselves as we have been regulated up to now, so that it does not appear that we subvert the discipline or that we go against the authority of the Lord. It is reserved for them to give an account of all their actions. "[136]

The text of s. Innocent I should be well analyzed, it affirms above all that Innocent follows Tradition, and follows Scripture (Rm 13); such powers, the Pope explains, were granted by God and that, to punish the wicked, the sword was permitted, furthermore it has been indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rom 13: 1. 4). How could they condemn, Innocent's predecessors, a behavior which they saw as having been granted by the authority of God? Therefore they had not defined anything against those who after Baptism were public administrators and used only the instruments of torture or even passed the sentence of death. The expression that nothing had been defined should not be understood in general with regard to these people but in the sense that nothing had been defined contrary to them, no condemnation had been fixed against them, instead a discipline had been established at least in broad terms. , which s. Innocent I follows, which allows them to continue their life in the ecclesial community.

But what about the affirmations of a Synod of Rome (Roman Synod to the Bishops of Gaul, (Epistle V, 13, PL XIII, 1190) according to which magistrates who have exercised their mandate and have sent to death cannot be exempt from sin The same text of Latin Patrology specifies (PL XIII, p. 1180, V; note e, p. 1190;) that here we are dealing with people who were to be elevated to the episcopal ministry in the Church and explains that these people also speak about Pope St. Innocent I in his letter II, the one written to Vittricius (PL 20, 472), in which, in n. 2, he affirms, in the line of St. Siricius, that those who after Baptism will have "received the girdle of militia ”, that is, they will have been part of the army, must not be admitted to be part of the clergy.

The affirmations of Innocent I and Siricius, both saints, are in evident agreement if we consider that Innocent became Pope about 2 years after the death of Siricius and that therefore he knew very well the latter's affirmations and knew very well what the discipline was. which was observed during his pontificate.

Leo the Great, Pope, significantly stated regarding the impiety of the priscillians “Merito Patres nostra… instanter egere, ut impius furor ab universa Ecclesia pelleretur: when etiam mundi principes ita hanc sacrilegam amentiam detestati sunt, ut auctorem eius (scl. Priscillianum) cum plerisque discipulis legum publicarum ense prosternerent. Videbant enim omnemjugiorum copulam solvi simulque divinum ius humanumque subverti, si huiusmodi hominibus usquam living cum such profession licuisset. Profuit diu ista districtio ecclesiasticae lenitati, quae etsi sacerdotali contenta iudicio, cruentas refugit ultiones, severis tamen christianorum principum constitutionibus adiuvatur, dum ad spiritale nonnumquam recurrunt remedium, qui timent corporale supplicium. ... "[137]

Clearly here Leo the Great affirms not only the lawfulness of the death penalty but praises the public authorities who have used it to repress the Priscillian heresy. I remember that Leo the Great is not only a Father but a Doctor of the Church and Pope! His words are therefore particularly precious.

These words were taken up again in the III Lateran Council shortly before the anathema against the Albigensians: “… as Blessed Leo [I] said, etc. "(Can. 27). (See COD p.224).

Pope Simplicius, in 478, recommended that the emperor Zeno put the assassins of the bishops to death; these sacrilegious killers, according to the Pontiff, are worthy of perishing by means of these torments, with such pains the Church and the Empire will find rest, with them divine favors will be attracted to the Empire.[138]

The same justification is given by Pelagius I, in a letter to the Duke of Italy, when the Pontiff affirms that it is not necessary to think that it is a sin to punish refractory bishops, in fact it is established by divine and human laws that the disorders of peace and unity of the Church must be repressed by civil power, and this is the greatest service that can be rendered to religion.[139]

Honorius I still recognizes this power and demands that the perpetrator of a rape receive the death penalty, that this punishment be not delayed, and that it be notified to as many people as possible.[140]

Dunot himself, in the same article just quoted, affirms that Saint Gregory the Great, Pope, teaches the legitimacy of the death penalty in several of his letters, recognizing that serious crimes deserve such punishment. In one case, speaking of the violence inflicted on Bishop Janvier de Malaga, he says that: the law punishes the perpetrator of such an insult with the death penalty. (Lett. XIII, 49) In a letter to a queen (Lett. VIII, 4), he exhorts her to make reparation for the offenses done to God by punishing with the death penalty adulterers, thieves and those responsible for other depraved actions for which she is provided for this penalty[141]   I remember that the just penalty is, according to s. Gregory, a punishment for which: the offense done to God is repaired, an example is offered that induces others not to commit evil, the fault is corrected.[142] The penalty for s. Gregory (cf. Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum” l. IX, epistula 86) has a social and an individual purpose; the social purpose is that for which it must avoid the contagion of evil and must dissuade from carrying out evil deeds; the individual purpose is that for which it is a duty and a punishment, so that the punishment corrects the guilt.[143]

God enlighten us better and better.

St. Nicholas I in his reply to the Bulgarians[144] among other things it affirms that: as for those who have slaughtered their relative it is good that the respectable laws find their application but if the guilty have taken refuge in the church, they are torn from the death promised by the laws.[145]Obviously this means that respectable laws provided for the death penalty for those who killed their blood relatives and Pope Nicholas accepts that they apply, only asking that the guilty be spared death if they took refuge in church. St. Nicholas was not radically opposed, therefore, to the death penalty! … And he did not speak radically against the death penalty; how could he do it, on the other hand, if Rom 13: 4, as we have seen, is very clear in granting the rulers the right to kill the wicked?

The affirmations of St. Nicholas I have been considered by some as a testimony of opposition to the death penalty, Nicholas I would be a kind of abolitionist of the ninth century ... Things are very different if we consider what I said above and if we also consider what Tradition Catholic affirmed until then, as we have seen. Tradition, as seen, clearly stated that the death penalty was lawful. No author of the time considered the affirmations of St. Nicola to the Bulgarians because they, in reality, as mentioned, followed the Tradition and affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty. Nicholas I did not raise a protest against the death sentences imposed by the Christian kings of those times, yet it is evident that they were imposed… in fact, Nicholas I did not oppose the lawfulness of the death penalty. The affirmations of St. Nicholas I did not lead to opposition to the death penalty in Rome or Italy or elsewhere ... simply because they did not oppose the death penalty ... The idea that s. Nicholas is an abolitionist, an idea appears that arose when some abolitionist Catholics sought footholds for their affirmations in the Tradition ... unfortunately, however, in this case they found a false foothold ...

Urban II, in a decree addressed to the bishop of Lucca, legitimized a death sentence not yet judicially pronounced; he does not call murder that of those who, in the ardor of their zeal for their mother, the holy Church, have put the excommunicated to death, but asks that they receive adequate penance, the text is taken from Gratian [146]

In this line, Pope Innocent III in 1199, with the Decretale Vergentis[147] draws a parallel between heretics and guilty of treason, and writes that according to legitimate sanctions the guilty of treason are punished with death, even more so the heretics who offend Jesus Christ must be separated from our head which is Christ.[148]

The Pontiff himself will further reaffirm the legitimacy of this capital punishment by ordering the disciples of Pietro Waldo, who were seeking reconciliation with the Church, to explicitly accept the Catholic doctrine on the lawfulness of the death penalty: "De potestate saeculari asserimus, quod sine sin mortali potest iudicium sanguinis exercere, dummodo ad inferendam vindictam non hatred, sed iudicio, not incaute, sed consulte procedat "[149]. Which essentially means the following: the secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise the judgment of blood, that is to impose the death penalty, provided that in inflicting the penalty it proceeds not out of hatred, but with good reason, with prudence, without recklessness. The fact that Innocent III included the lawfulness of the death penalty among the truths that the Waldensians had to expressly believe in order to enter the communion of the Catholic Church shows that this truth was evidently considered an important part of the Church's doctrine.

Brugger in his text on the death penalty also reports a letter from Innocent III to Durando written in July 1209 in which the Pontiff states that it is a mistake to affirm that the secular power cannot, without mortal sin, condemn someone to death.[150]

The Popes Lucius III[151]  Innocent III[152], Gregory IX[153] and Boniface VIII[154] they adopted decretals, passed into universal legislation, which provided for the heretic to be placed in the power of the secular arm for punishment; the punishment they indicated for this crime was the death penalty for cremation. [155] Beyond any other consideration regarding the penalties for the crime of heresy and similar offenses, this clearly indicates that it is permissible for Catholic doctrine to inflict the death penalty in some cases.

Boniface VIII came to threaten to sanction the temporal authorities who did not proceed without delay (indilando) to the execution of the heretics; the Pontiff himself decided to abandon the assassins of Cardinals to the secular arm so that such assassinations would be punished with death.[156]

The Furatur decree[157], paraphrasing the Exodus (21, 16), he affirms that anyone found guilty of a kidnapping and who sold the kidnapped person is put to death.[158]

In 1215, during the IV Lateran Council (XII Ecumenical), the Excommunicamus canon was adopted, which ordered the abandonment of heretics condemned "to secular powers" (Const. 3) ... with consequent imposition of the death penalty (COD p. 233 ff. .) this text will pass in the decretals of Gregory IX[159].

To have greater clarity on the punishment of heretics in those times it seems interesting to me to report this text which deals with the punishment reserved for heretics by the legislation of Frederick II: "The Federician norm established, first of all, that heretics condemned by the Church and assigned to judgment secular were punished animadversione due, a euphemism that now technically indicated capital punishment. If, for fear of death, the offender had decided to return to orthodoxy, he would still have been punished with perpetual prison, as established by the decree of 1231, taking up in turn a canon of the Council of Toulouse of 1229 (chapter 11, in Mansi, vol. 23, coll. 191-205). The death penalty was inflicted not only on heretics, but also on aides and those who, after having abjured in fear of death, had returned to heresy. "[160]

Resolution equal to that of the IV Lateran Council will be adopted by the Council of Constance against the wyclifites (cf. COD pp. 414ss) and the Hussites (cf. COD p. 429, condemnation of Hus).

Among the sentences condemned by the Council of Constance in Wicleff's doctrine there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of heretics to the secular arm in fact he affirms that God cannot approve that one is civilly judged or civilly condemned (cf. COD p . 425, no. 44)

Among the sentences condemned in the doctrine of Hus by the Council of Constance is that for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of the heretics to the secular arm (cf. COD p. 430, n.14)

According to Seppelt Martin V never formally validated the decrees of the Council of Constance, this validation instead was carried out by Eugene IV in 1446 with the reservation: “without prejudice to the law, dignity and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See”. (FX Seppelt- G. Schwaiger "History of the Popes" Ed. Mediterranee, Rome 1964 v. III p. 186)

Martin V accepted, however, the decrees of the Council of Constance; C. Bianca states: “The full adherence to the decrees of the council that had elected him is testified by the bull of 22 February. 1418 with which Martin V jointly reaffirmed the condemnation of John Wyclif, Jan Hus and Girolamo da Praga. "[161]

R. De Mattei specifies: "Martin V, elected a" true "Pope in Constance on 11 November 1417, in the bull Inter cunctas of 22 February 1418, recognized the ecumenical nature of the Council of Constance and all that it had decided in previous years , albeit with a generically restrictive formula: "in favorm fidei et salutem animarum"[162] Hefele's text Histoire des Conciles d'après les documents originaux, translated into French and published in an 1876 edition, states that Martin V achieved this recognition through a questionnaire that he wanted presented to those suspected of heresy. Regarding this questionnaire, Hefele states: "Comme nous avons vu, les évêques et les inquisiteurs devaient demander à tout suspect s'il croyait que le concile général, et nommément celui de Constance, représentait l'Église universelle, et s'il regardait ce que le dit concile, représentant l'Église universelle, avait approuvé et approuvait in favorm fidei et salutem animarum, comme devant être observé par tous les fidèles chrétiens, etc. (Article 5) "[163] The Bishops and inquisitors had to ask every man suspected of heresy if he believed that the Council of Constance represents the Church and if he considered the decrees of the Council, made "in favorm fidei et salutem animarum", as obligatory for all Christian faithful. Obviously this meant that this Council of Constance and its documents were welcomed by the Church and had to be accepted by the faithful. With this document, therefore, Martin V reaffirmed the doctrine of this Council on the lawfulness of the death penalty and strengthened it because in this questionnaire to examine the doctrine professed by people suspected of wyclifism and hussism, the person examined was explicitly asked whether he believed in possibility for prelates to appeal to the secular arm[164] and therefore to have the death penalty inflicted. Such a question is extremely significant of the importance of this question within Catholic doctrine; if it were not important, and very important, it certainly would not have been given to these people to recognize their catholicity. Basically Martin V fully recognizes the doctrine according to which it is possible to condemn a heretic to death and in turn condemns as heretics those who do not accept this doctrine.

A decision of the Ecumenical Council of Vienne of 1311-1312[165], condemns the custom of refusing the Sacrament of Confession to those condemned to death; the Council Fathers evidently wished that those condemned to death could have recourse to that sacrament before the death penalty, this universal regulation had been preceded by others, local, in the seventh and ninth centuries, such as can. 27 of the Council of Mainz in 847 (Mansi v. 14 p. 910ss) Here the condemned abuse is not the death penalty, but the refusal to provide spiritual remedies to the condemned. The Pope urges magistrates and temporal lords to assert the possibility for those sentenced to death to confess and receive communion.[166]

Leo X, in 1520, also included this among Luther's errors: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit".[167] Beyond any other consideration regarding the penalties for the crime of heresy and similar offenses, this statement clearly indicates that it is permissible for Catholic doctrine to inflict the death penalty in some cases. The error for which Luther denies that the death penalty for heresy can be inflicted falls within the errors indicated by Leo X in this way: we have seen that these same errors or articles are not Catholic, and should not be believed as such, but that they are contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and to Tradition, above all to the true and common interpretation of the divine Scriptures… in fact from the same errors or from some it clearly derives that the same Church, which is governed by the Holy Spirit, errs and has always erred.[168]

Furthermore, adds Leo X, in the same document: "Praefatos omnes et singulos articulos seu errores tamquam, ut praemittitur, respective haereticos, aut scandalosos, aut falsos, aut piarum aurium offensivos, vel simplicium mentium seductivos, et veritati catholicae obviantes, damnamus, reprobamus , atque omnino reicimus. "[169]

Which means that "... with the opinion and consent of the same venerable Our brothers, after mature deliberation on each of the aforementioned articles, by the authority of Almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and Our own we condemn and reprove and reject each and every one the aforementioned articles and errors, respectively heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to the pious ears, capable of seducing the spirit of the simple and contrary to Catholic truth; and we declare and define that by all Christians, of both sexes, they must be held condemned, reproved and rejected. "[170]  Thus Luther's error regarding the death penalty for heretics is found in this group of errors of which it is said: by the authority of Almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and Our we condemn and reprove and reject all and individuals the aforementioned articles and errors, respectively heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to the pious ears, capable of seducing the spirit of the simple and contrary to Catholic truth; and we declare and define that by all Christians, of both sexes, they are to be held condemned, reproved and rejected.

The Roman Catechism taught the lawfulness of the death penalty: “Another category of permitted killings is that which falls within the powers of those magistrates who have the faculty to sentence to death. This faculty, exercised according to the legal norms, serves to repress the troublemakers and to defend the innocent. By applying it, the magistrates are not only not guilty of murder, but, on the contrary, obey in a way superior to the divine law, which forbids killing, since the purpose of the law is the protection of human life and tranquility. Now the decisions of the magistrates, legitimate avengers of crimes, are aimed precisely at guaranteeing the tranquility of civil life, through the punitive repression of audacity and delinquency. David said: "In the early hours of the day I suppressed all the sinners of the territory, in order to eliminate from the city of the Lord all those who commit iniquity" (Ps 100,8). For the same reasons, neither do those who, during a just war, not moved by greed or cruelty, but only by the love of the public good, take the lives of their enemies during a just war ”.[171]

Likewise, the Major Catechism of Saint Pius X (third part, n. 413) taught the lawfulness of this penalty: “413 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill one's neighbor? A. It is lawful to kill one's neighbor when one is fighting in a just war, when one executes by order of the supreme authority the sentence of death under penalty of some crime; and finally when it comes to the necessary and legitimate defense of life against an unjust aggressor. "

Pope Leo XIII wrote in "Pastoralis Officii", an encyclical letter of 1881: "It is well established that both divine laws, both the one that has been proposed with the light of reason, and the one that has been promulgated with divinely inspired writings, prohibit to anyone, absolutely, to kill or injure a man in the absence of a just public reason, unless forced by the need to defend his life. " [172]

I point out that up to 1870 capital punishments were carried out in the Papal State, which obviously indicates that the doctrine of the lawfulness of the death penalty was perfectly accepted by the Supreme Pontiffs. Dunot writes that the last proof of the legitimacy of the death penalty is the practice of the pope sovereigns; this is only an indirect justification, specifies the French professor, but it is obvious that if this penalty were contrary to the Gospel, he would not have had the right of citizenship in the Papal State. The death penalty was foreseen and applied by the various Popes until the abolition of the Papal State in 1870. The Popes applied the death penalty in the Papal State and the Penal Code of the Holy See provided for the death penalty until 1962 for those who attempted to kill the Pope.[173]

Obviously all this was done in the absolute certainty that this punishment was legitimate, given the clear biblical and patristic indications as well as the affirmations of the holy Doctors.

Leo X gave the governor of the city the power to take action against criminals and also to impose the death penalty on them. [Etsi pro, 1514, in Bull. , t. 5, p. 615; ] Julius III provided for the death penalty for holders of unpurged copies of the Talmud of their negative claims against Christ [Cum sicut, 1554, in Bull. , t. 6, p. 482] Paul IV foresaw it for the proxies [Volens seleeribus, 1558, in Bull., T. 6, p. 538.] etc. ; Cyrille Dounot in her article “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église ”Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 [174] he cites various other crimes which, on the basis of papal rulings, provided for the death penalty.

Pius XI in Casti Connubii affirmed: “And, with supreme lightness, this power derives, against innocent people, from the right of the sword, which is valid only against offenders; nor does the right of defense, up to the point of blood, against the unjust aggressor take place here (who, in fact, would call an innocent creature an unjust aggressor?); nor can it be, in any way, the right that they say "right of extreme necessity", and which can go as far as the direct killing of the innocent. "[175] The right of the sword is the death penalty that applies only to the guilty, of course.

The pontiff who has dealt with the topic the most is Pius XII. On several occasions Pope Pacelli has taken up the Church's teaching on the death penalty.

In a speech of February 22, 1944, he said: “But even in this matter the key to any solution is given by faith in a personal God, who is the source of justice and has reserved for himself the right to life and death. Nothing other than this faith will serve to confer the moral strength to observe the due limits in the face of all the pitfalls and temptations to cross them; bearing in mind that, with the exception of the cases of legitimate private defense, of just and waged war with just methods, and of the death penalty inflicted by public authorities for well-determined and proven very serious crimes, human life is intangible. "[176]

Pius XII himself, considering the death penalty perfectly lawful in some cases, said again in a speech of November 12, 1944: "The fifth commandment - Non occides (Exod. 20, 13) -, this synthesis of duties concerning life and the integrity of the human body is fertile in teaching, both for the professor on the university chair and for the practicing doctor. As long as a man is not guilty, his life is intangible, and therefore any act tending directly to destroy it is illegal, whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end, whether it is an embryonic life or in its fullness. development that is now at its end. Of the life of a man, not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty, God is the only lord! "[177]

In the same discourse we also read: ”Here likewise reason and faith draw the boundaries between the respective rights of society and the individual. … Not from it, but in the Creator himself, he has the right over his own body and over his life, and to the Creator he answers for the use he makes of it. From this it follows that the company cannot directly deprive him of that right, as long as he has not made himself punishable by such deprivation with a serious and proportionate crime. "

And in a speech given to surgeons the following year, the Pope himself stated: "... unless a man is guilty of some crime deserving the death penalty, God alone, no power on earth, may dispose of his life."[178] Which we can translate like this: unless a man is guilty of some crime that deserves the death penalty, only God can dispose of life.

Further, Pius XII, affirmed: “Aun in the case of the ejecución de un condenado a muerte, el Estado no disposes of the derecho of the individual a la vida. Entonces está reservado al poder público privar al condenado del "bien" de la vida, en expiación de su falta of him, después de que, por su crimen of him, él se ha desposeído de su "derecho" a la vida. "[179]  Which essentially means: even when it comes to the execution of a person sentenced to death, the State does not have the right of the individual to life. It is then reserved for the public power to deprive the condemned of the good of life, in expiation of his error, after that, with his crime, he has already deprived himself of his right to life.

Obviously, the death penalty must be applied only when you are sure about the real ability to understand and want and about the real responsibility of the offender; Pius XII said in a speech of December 5, 1954: “According to the cases, the judge will not fail to consult renowned specialists on the capacity and responsibility of the alleged offender and to take into account the results of the modern psychological, psychiatric and characterological sciences. If despite all these concerns, an important and serious doubt still remains, no conscientious judge will proceed with a sentence, especially when it is an irremediable penalty, such as the death penalty. " [180]

Benedict XVI, despite having affirmed that "the attention of the leaders of society on the need to do everything possible to achieve the elimination of the death penalty"[181] ... and that "your deliberations may encourage political and legislative initiatives, promoted in a growing number of countries, to eliminate the death penalty and continue the substantial progress made to adapt criminal law to both the needs of the human dignity of prisoners and to 'effective maintenance of public order'.[182] … Has however left intact the Catechism which, as seen, in n. 2267, in its typica edition fixed by s. John Paul II with the great help of Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases.

We will see better later what he said in this regard s. John Paul II but in the meantime it seems to me important to specify that the death penalty does not deny the dignity of man but affirms in particular the need to defend oneself from the wicked, more precisely it affirms the need to defend oneself from the danger they pose to the community. This was clearly stated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the editio typica carried out at the time of St. John Paul II at n. 2267..

In the line of s. Thomas and of all Tradition also went to Evangelium Vitae where it stated: "It is clear that, precisely in order to achieve all these purposes, the extent and quality of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided, and must not reach the extreme extent of suppression. of the offender except in cases of absolute necessity, that is, when the defense of the company was not possible otherwise. "[183]

The sound morality affirms the inviolability of the innocent man but not the inviolability of the guilty man, the guilty man is not inviolable in fact the legitimate defense, which even Pope Francis accepts, clearly says that the one who attacks life can be killed of others.

In conclusion, the affirmation of the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases is evident in the two thousand year Magisterium of the Church, on the other hand the commitment to defend human life from excessive use of the death penalty is evident above all in recent decades.

d) Other particularly significant recent documents and statements on the lawfulness of the death penalty.

Card. Ratzinger questioned on the question of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church said that: "There is a dynamism, which does not depart from the teaching of 2000 years, but at the same time emphasizes that only in cases of extreme gravity this penalty can be applied. The Catechism gives a great responsibility to the same authorities to assess the gravity of the crime and to see if the moral purpose is obtainable without the death penalty. In this case it is mandatory to follow the bloodless way. The Catechism therefore gives the idea of ​​an evolution that is moving further and further away from the death penalty ”.[184] The same, practically, also said Msgr. Beetles[185] clearly barring the way to those who, incredibly, wanted to affirm that the Catechism in question denied the legitimacy of the death penalty (see R. Tamanti "The death penalty" Cittadella Editrice, Assisi, 2004 pp. 169s)

In 2004 the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, with the full approval of the Pope, published the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", in it we read at n. 405: "The Church sees as a sign of hope" the increasingly widespread aversion of public opinion to the death penalty, even if only as an instrument of social "legitimate defense" ... Although the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude - assuming full verification the identity and responsibility of the guilty party - the death penalty "when this was the only viable way to effectively defend the life of human beings from the unjust aggressor", (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267) the non-bloody methods of repression and punishment are preferable because "they respond better to the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267) ... the cases in which it is absolutely necessary to suppress the offender "are now very rare , if not practically non-existent ».[186] ... " [187]

The traditional doctrine is therefore fully confirmed even if there is a strong trend towards the practical elimination of the death penalty given the current effective security measures that in many cases make the offender practically harmless.

God enlighten us better and better.

Cardinal Dulles concludes his examination of the Bible and Tradition regarding the death penalty with these words: “Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and Tradition, we can collect some firm points of the doctrine. He agrees that crime deserves to be punished in this life and not just the next. Furthermore, it was agreed that the State has the authority to apply adequate penalties to persons found guilty of crimes and that, in serious cases, such penalties may include the death penalty. "[188]

As we have seen in 2000 years the Church has never said that this penalty is contrary to the Gospel, but on the contrary the Popes and the holy Doctors, who had the Holy Spirit, have clearly stated that it was according to the s. Gospel.

Card. Dulles adds an important clarification: "The growing opposition to the death penalty in Europe after the Enlightenment went hand in hand with a decline in trust in eternal life." ... and concludes: "The US bishops, for their part, had already declared in their 1980 majority declaration that" in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of the penalty do not justify the imposition of the death penalty ". Since then they have repeatedly intervened to ask for leniency in particular cases. Like the Pope, even the bishops do not completely rule out capital punishment, but affirm that it is not justifiable as it is practiced today in the United States.

By reaching this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the state, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on people convicted of very serious crimes. "[189]

The death penalty is not lawful, according to Christian wisdom, where or as long as the prison system is truly effective but it remains lawful where or when there is no such effective prison system, it remains lawful, therefore, in cases of war when such a system prisoner skips or misses altogether; the use of the death penalty remains legitimate when this is the only viable way to effectively defend the life of human beings from the unjust aggressor.

e) Important declarations by Cardinals and Bishops who reaffirm the lawfulness of the death penalty even after the change in n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

After the affirmations of Pope Francis, various intellectuals, theologians and in particular various Pastors reaffirmed the traditional doctrine that affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty. The statements of Cardinal Müller, Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith appear in this line. who, to a question about the revision of the Catechism carried out by the currently reigning Pontiff to make capital punishment "inadmissible", replied by saying: "We are against executions, but in theory we cannot absolutely deny them, if we look at the history of the discussion on this topic . … And the impression is not good that the Pope, if he wants to do it, can simply change the catechism. Where are the limits? The magisterium is not above the word of God, but below it and serves it (Dei Verbum, 10). ...

It was justified as a development of dogma, but the death penalty has nothing to do directly with dogma. This is a natural truth that belongs to the natural ethics of the state. It is not material relating to the revelation of truth and the salvation of all by God. " [190]

Cardinals and Bishops have also intervened on the question and have recently made an important “Declaration…” in which they affirm, among other things: “28. In accordance with Sacred Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church has not erred in teaching that the civil power can legitimately exercise the death penalty on evildoers where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of society. [191]. "[192]

So despite the claims of Pope Francis, the death penalty remains legitimate in some cases, as the Church has always taught.

God enlighten us better and better.

f) The lawfulness of the death penalty is affirmed by natural law and confirmed by the Bible.

Bessette and Feser in their book on the death penalty state: "The natural law, according to a typical definition, consists of the universal, practical obligatory judgments of reason, knowable by all men as binding them to do good and avoid evil, and discovered by right reason from the nature of man adequately considered.[193]"[194]

The natural law, therefore, is constituted by the universal and practical obligatory judgments of reason, known by all men as binding to do good and avoid evil, and discovered by just reason by the nature of man adequately considered.

As we said above, H. Lio in a profound article that can be read in “Dictionarium morale et canonicum”, Officuum Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 677ss states that the laws of the to. Testament that imposed the death penalty for certain crimes were not simply positive laws of the Jews but "leges quae interpretabantur legem naturalem" that is, laws that explained the natural law. The famous Franciscan moralist specifies in this line that all theologians usually take as an argument to demonstrate the intrinsic lawfulness of the death penalty the general consensus of all nations in imposing this penalty; whoever wants to deny the lawfulness of such a penalty under the natural law should also reject the argument drawn from the consent of all peoples; if the lawfulness of the death penalty were a doctrine known only by divine revelation it should belong only to those who have been the object of a special divine revelation, such as Jews and Christians, instead it is the patrimony of all peoples ... therefore it is part of the law natural.[195]

J. Leclerq also stated that the death penalty lawfulness is affirmed by natural law (“Leçons de Droit Naturel.” Wesmael-Charlier, Namur 1946, IV 89) as stated by G. Concepts in his text “Death penalty” ed. Piemme 1993 on p. 112.

What was stated by H. Lio and Leclerq was reiterated by Cardinal Müller, as seen in the previous paragraph “… the death penalty has nothing to do directly with dogma. This is a natural truth that belongs to the natural ethics of the state. It is not material relating to the revelation of truth and the salvation of all by God.… But we also have natural truths: the Church fights for human rights, for example, but natural human rights do not belong to supernatural revelation. "[196]

St. Thomas affirms that: due to the fact that good is presented as an end to be achieved and evil as an opposite thing, reason recognizes as good, and therefore to be done, all the things towards which man has an inclination natural and contrary he recognizes them as bad and to be avoided (cf. I-II q. 94 a. 2 in c.).

Natural law, Bessette and Feser explain, is "natural" both in the sense that it is not created by man, having a binding force that flows from the very nature of things before any knowledge or determination by a human legislator[197]; both in the sense that it is not supernatural but is distinct from the order of grace and knowable, in principle, from reason, without a special divine revelation.[198]

God inserted natural law into human minds, so that it would be known naturally, and with this insertion he promulgated it.

The law, according to St. Thomas, is an ordination (ordinatio) of reason for the common good, promulgated by whoever has the care of a community. The word ordination seems to me to better express what s says. Thomas as taken, in particular, in the sense of giving order, order, regular disposition[199] The law gives order, rules.

St. Paul affirms the existence of the natural law (Rom 1,19-20), in their hearts the pagans have this law, established by God (Rom 2,14-15)

Leo XIII affirmed: “Therefore the law is a guide to man in action, and with rewards and punishments it induces him to do well and distances him from sin. Sovereign over everything: such is the natural law, written and engraved in the soul of every man, since it is none other than human reason that orders us to act righteously and forbids us to sin. Indeed, this norm of human reason cannot have the force of law except because it is the voice and interpreter of a higher reason, to which our mind and our freedom must be subject. "[200]

St. Paul VI affirmed: "... even the natural law is an expression of God's will, the faithful fulfillment of it is equally necessary for the eternal salvation of men."[201]

The basic natural law argument for the legitimacy of capital punishment in principle is very clear, according to Bessette and Feser, and can be summarized as follows:

1. Criminals deserve punishment.

2. The more severe the transgression, the more severe the deserved punishment.

3. Some crimes are so serious that no punishment less than death would be proportionate in its gravity.

4 Therefore, offenders guilty of such crimes deserve death.

5. Public authorities have the right, in principle, to inflict the punishment they deserve on offenders.

6 Therefore, public authorities have the right, in principle, to inflict the death penalty on those guilty of more serious crimes. [202]

St. Thomas clearly shows in the "Summa contra gentiles" (Sum against the gentiles) in book III to chapter CXLVI how the natural law affirms that judges have the power to punish and inflict death on evildoers; in fact, on the basis of a precise reflection, rooted in principles of right reason, he affirms the legitimacy of the death penalty. This penalty is just in some cases and human reason itself recognizes it.

The reasoning of s. Thomas is in the sense that: the divine plan foresees the reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked, guilt is repaired by punishment; for the good of men it is necessary that the wicked be punished; the common good is more important than the particular good of an individual so even rulers justly kill evil men, to keep the peace in the state.

I underline that in these affirmations of the s. Doctor also includes the idea that the death penalty prevents the criminal from committing other crimes and more generally harming the community and in this sense the death penalty falls within the scope of self-defense that obviously the natural law clearly states.

St. Thomas concludes his affirmations indicating how the natural law affirms the legitimacy of the death penalty by quoting some biblical texts: 1 Cor. 5,6, Rom 13, 4, 1 Peter 2,13.

These biblical texts, therefore, according to St. Thomas contain the natural law according to which it is permissible for rulers to inflict penalties and also to inflict the death penalty; on the other hand they confirm from the top of supernatural revelation the truth that it is permissible in some cases to inflict capital punishment.

It is therefore a question of moral precepts affirmed by the natural law and confirmed by the revealed law, we spoke at length, above these precepts when we dealt with the natural law and its relationship with the revealed law.

g) Divine origin of public power and penalties that it can rightly impose.

Let's say first of all that, as H. Giudice affirmed: “En los diversos escritores cristianos de los cinco primeros siglos se consensus en reconocer el origen divino de la autoridad civil y por lo tanto para obedecer las leyes justas. Fuera de las aplicaciones injustas, the justificación of the penal system is rooted in the need to put a brake on violence. Según Ireneo, the existencia del pecado hizo necesario el ejercicio de la autoridad punitiva. Para el Crisóstomo this institución no only está ligada al pecado fino que hace a la concepción del orden. "[203] In the various Christian writers of the first five centuries there is a consensus in recognizing the divine origin of civil authority and therefore in obeying just laws. Outside of unjust applications, the justification of the penal system lies in the need to stop the violence. According to s. Irenaeus, the existence of sin made it necessary to exercise punitive authority. For Chrysostom, this institution is not only linked to sin but also to the conception of order.

These statements of Judge appear of extreme importance ... I repeat: in the various Christian writers of the first five centuries there is a consensus in recognizing the divine origin of civil authority ... I invite you to reflect deeply on this point ...

We find the same statements, but developed, in Brugger's text: "If we grant two Patristic assumptions, namely, that political power is divinely instituted and that inherent in that power is the right to kill malefactors, then the idea that the exercise of political power is incompatible with membership in God's special community, the Church, suffers from an obvious tension. "[204]

Two patristic indications must be kept in mind: political power is divinely instituted, inherent in that power is the right to kill criminals. These two presuppositions practically eliminate the idea that the exercise of political power and therefore of the death penalty is incompatible with belonging to the Church. State power is instituted by God and by God it has the right to kill evildoers, so the death penalty is lawful in some cases.

Obviously the Fathers of the Church recognized this divine origin based on the Bible, which precisely states, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, that authority is required by the moral order and comes from God (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1899) ; this passage from the Catechism quotes two biblical texts: (1) the famous text of St. Paul for which: “Everyone is subject to the established authorities; for there is no authority except by God and those that exist are established by God. So whoever opposes authority is opposed to the order established by God. And those who oppose will bring condemnation upon themselves. " (Rom 13,1: 2-2); (1) the text of the first letter of Peter according to which: “Live subject to all human authority for the love of the Lord: both to the king as sovereign, and to the governors as sent by him to punish evildoers and reward those who do good. Because this is God's will: that, by doing good, you shut your mouth to the ignorance of fools, as free men, using freedom not as a veil to cover malice, but as servants of God. Honor all, love your brothers, fear God, honor the king. "(2,13 Pt 17: XNUMX-XNUMX.)

This doctrine also emerges from texts of the Old Testament

In the book of Proverbs 8 we read “Through me kings reign and princes make righteous decrees; through me the leaders rule and the great rule with justice. "

In Proverbs 24 we read: "My son, fear the Lord and the king, and do not meddle with the rebels, because suddenly their chastisement will arise and ruin sent by both those who know it?"

In the book of Wisdom, in chap. 6 we read: “Listen therefore, O king, and seek to understand; learn, O rulers of all the earth. Pay attention, you rulers of peoples, who are proud to rule over many nations. The Lord gave you power and authority from the Most High; he will examine your works and scrutinize your purposes: although you were ministers of his kingdom, you did not rule righteously or keep the law or conduct yourself according to God's will. "

The divine origin of authority is a fact that clearly emerges from Holy Scripture and that the Church has always recognized.

Leo XIII stated: "And since no society can stand without someone who is at the head of all and who pushes each, with an effective and consistent impulse, towards a common goal, it follows that civil coexistence requires an authority that governments: and this, not unlike society, comes from nature and therefore from God himself. It follows that public power by itself cannot come but from God. Only God, in fact, is the absolute and supreme Lord of things, to whom everything that exists must submit and honor: so that anyone invested with the right of empire does not receive it from anyone other than God, the greatest Prince of all. There is no power except from God (Rm 13,1). "[205]

As the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church says in n. 380: "The submission, not passive, but for reasons of conscience (cf. Rom 13,5: 13,1), to the established power responds to the order established by God. St. Paul defines the relations and duties of Christians towards the authorities (cf. Rom. 7- 12,17). ... The Apostle certainly does not intend to legitimize all power, but rather to help Christians "to do good before all men" (Rom 13,4:1), even in relations with authority, insofar as it is at the service of God for the good of the person (cf. Rom 2,1: 2; 3,1 Tim 13,4: 1-2,13; Tit 1: 2,14) and "for the just condemnation of those who do evil" (Rom 1: 2,17). St. Peter exhorts Christians to be "subject to every human institution for the love of the Lord" (1 Pt 2,15:XNUMX). The king and his governors have the task of "punishing the evildoers and rewarding the good" (XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX). Their authority must be "honored" (cf. XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX), that is, recognized, because God demands an upright behavior, which shuts "the mouth to the ignorance of fools" (XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX). ... "[206]

It is necessary to obey, according to truth, these civil authorities by honoring and respecting them, as the Catechism says in n. 1900: "The duty of obedience requires everyone to pay the honors due to it to authority and to surround the persons who exercise the office with respect and, according to their merit, with gratitude and benevolence."

It is also necessary to pray for the rulers, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1900) reminds us that St. Paul exhorts us to pray for rulers: "I therefore recommend, first of all, that we ask questions, supplications, prayers and thanks for all men, for kings and for all those in power, so that we can lead a calm life. and quiet, dignified and dedicated to God. This is a beautiful and pleasing thing in the sight of God, our savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. " (1 Timothy 2, 1ss)

The Catechism therefore speaks of: "... the Church's oldest prayer for political authority: (Cf already 1 Tm 2,1-2.)"

This prayer was written by St. Clement and asks God to give the rulers peace, harmony etc. so that they can wisely exercise their task that God himself has conferred on them (cf. San Clemente Romano, Epistula ad Corinthios, 61, 1-2: SC 167, 198-200 (Funk 1, 178-180).) "(Catechism of Catholic Church n.1900)

Obviously, authority must act according to divine law: "Authority does not derive its own moral legitimacy from itself." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1902)

St. Thomas affirmed that human laws are truly laws and rules insofar as they in turn are regulated by right reason and therefore by God who is the eternal Law. From God who is Eternal Law, supreme Rule, human law draws strength in this line. To the extent that human laws deviate from reason and therefore from the Eternal Law, they are unjust, they are rather a form of violence and therefore do not realize the concept of law.[207]

Leo XIII affirmed: “But in any type of state the princes must above all keep their gaze fixed on God, the supreme ruler of the world, and propose himself as the model and norm in the government of the community. … God… wanted a sovereign power to exist in civil society, whose custodians would somehow reflect the image of divine power and divine providence over mankind. The exercise of power must therefore be just, not as a master, but almost paternal, since the power of God over men is supremely just and permeated with paternal benevolence; it must be exercised in view of the benefit of the citizens, since whoever holds the power governs with this single task, of protecting the good of the citizens. "[208]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also specifies that the State can and must, in some cases, impose penalties proportionate to the gravity of the crime: “The legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict penalties proportionate to the gravity of the crime. "(Catechism of the Catholic Church 2266)

As the Compendium of the Catholic Church explains well: "The State has the dual task of repressing behaviors that are harmful to human rights and the fundamental rules of a civil coexistence, as well as to remedy, through the system of penalties, the disorder caused by the criminal action. "[209]

As we saw above, the penalty has, according to traditional doctrine, followed by s. Thomas, three functions: a vindictive function, tending to restore the broken order and atonement for the crime; an exemplary function aimed at deterring potential offenders and avoiding relapses into crime; a medicinal function that aims at the amendment of the offender, at the "conversion" of him. This doctrine has very ancient origins and can also be found in s. Gregory the Great (see Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum" l. XII, epistula 11) according to which an adequate punishment is carried out in such a way as to include both a proportionate punishment for the perpetrator and a cause for fear for those who share the order of him.[210] The just punishment is therefore, according to St. Gregory (see Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum" l. VIII, epistula19) a punishment for which the offense done to God is repaired and the punishment inflicted is an example that induces others to correct [211]. The penalty for s. Gregory (cfr. Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum”, l. IX, epistula 86) has a purpose: (1) social for which he must avoid the contagion of evil and must dissuade from carrying out evil actions; (2) individual for whom it is a duty and a punishment, so that the punishment corrects the guilt. ([212] [213]

The purpose of the penalty is multiple, confirms the Compendium of the Church's Social Doctrine: "The penalty does not serve the sole purpose of defending public order and guaranteeing the safety of persons: it also becomes an instrument for the correction of the guilty , a correction which also assumes the moral value of expiation when the guilty voluntarily accepts his sentence (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n.2266). "[214]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in this line that the penalty:

1) has primarily a reparative purpose;

2) has the defensive purpose of people and public order;

3) has medicinal purpose;

4) if accepted voluntarily, it has the value of atonement (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n.2266)

Dunot states in this line: “De manière classique, trois fonctions sont assignées à la peine: une fonction vindicative, tendant à restaurer l'ordre lésé, à faire expier le crime; une fonction exemplaire, cherchant à dissuader la récidive, à intimider le délinquant potentiel; une fonction médicinale, visant à amoendement du coupable, à son redressement of him.[215]"[216]

The penalty therefore has: a vindictive function, tending to restore the broken order and atonement for the crime; an exemplary and defensive function aimed at deterring potential offenders and avoiding relapses into crime; a medicinal function that aims at the amendment of the offender, at the "conversion" of him.

h) Clarifications on the lawfulness of life imprisonment, which Pope Francis disputes.

We see the Pope's attack on life imprisonment already in 2014 when Pope Francis affirmed: “And this, I connect it with life imprisonment. For a short time, in the Criminal Code of the Vatican, there is no longer a life sentence. Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty. "[217]

Pope Francis said again: "... the Magisterium of the Church believes that life sentences, which take away the possibility of a moral and existential redemption, in favor of the condemned and in favor of the community, are a form of hidden death penalty[218]. "[219]

This attack by Pope Francis against life imprisonment also took place in 2019: “While the mistakes of the past are remedied, hope for the future cannot be erased. Life imprisonment is not the solution of problems - I repeat: life imprisonment is not the solution of problems - but a problem to be solved. Because if hope is locked up in the cell, there is no future for society. Never deprive yourself of the right to start over! "[220]

In another speech, along this line, the Pope asked to: "... seriously rethink life imprisonment." [221]

The Pope further stated: "Take with you this image of the windows and the horizon, and make sure that in your countries the prisons, the prisons, always have a window and a horizon, even a life sentence, which for me is questionable, even a life sentence should have a horizon. "[222]

So the Pope, who declared the death penalty inadmissible, practically denies the legitimacy of even life imprisonment… even life imprisonment would be, in this line, contrary to the Gospel, like the death penalty.

Even the Pope affirms in this line that the Magisterium of the Church "believes that life sentences" are inadmissible ... precisely because they would be a hidden form of death penalty.

This seems to me to be another clear mistake.

We are seeing and we will see more and more that the lawfulness of the death penalty is a truth that belongs to the divine law and that the two-thousand-year Magisterium of the Church has never denied the lawfulness of this penalty in this line. never affirmed the inadmissibility of life imprisonment. If the death penalty is lawful, the more so is life imprisonment. Even the sentence of life imprisonment appears to be a clear error of Pope Francis which has nothing to do with the Magisterium of the Church, with Christ the Master and with the divine law.

May God enlighten us better and free his Church from the errors that Pope Francis spreads.

i) Clarifications on legitimate defense, just war and the death penalty.

God enlighten us better and better.

The sound biblical interpretation carried out by the Church, of which we have already spoken above, affirms through the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2263: "The legitimate defense of persons and societies does not constitute an exception to the prohibition of killing the innocent, which consists of voluntary murder." St. Thomas explains that in carrying out his own, lawful, personal defense man can cause two things: the preservation of his life and the killing of the attacker (cf. II-II, q. 64, a. 7, c ).

Individuals and communities can defend themselves and this defense can lead to the death of the attacker.

In the Evangelium Vitae s. John Paul II, after having examined the fifth commandment (do not kill) in the light of all Scripture and after having highlighted how the first Christians envisaged very severe penalties for murders, affirms that: "Undoubtedly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to bring love to oneself no less than to others, they establish a real right to self-defense. The same demanding precept of love for others, enunciated in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, presupposes love for oneself as a term of comparison: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mk 12:31). Therefore, no one could renounce the right to defend oneself for lack of love for life or for oneself, but only by virtue of a heroic love, which deepens and transfigures self-love itself, according to the spirit of the evangelical beatitudes (cf. Mt 5, 38-48) in the radical self-giving of which the Lord Jesus himself is a sublime example. "[223]

As we saw above, within the biblical horizon and right biblical interpretation, legitimate defense is legitimate, therefore we are not outside the Bible or against the Bible when we affirm the lawfulness of self-defense, but we are in the Bible, in biblical wisdom, in the right biblical interpretation… and therefore we are in the Gospel, in the evangelical wisdom and in the right interpretation of the Gospel; we are therefore not outside the Bible or against the Bible when we affirm the lawfulness, in the context of legitimate defense, of killing the unjust aggressor but we are in the Bible, in biblical wisdom, in the correct biblical interpretation ... and therefore we are in the Gospel, in the evangelical wisdom and in the correct interpretation of the Gospel ...

In this line of right biblical interpretation, it must be remembered that legitimate defense, as Evangelium Vitae itself specifies, in the passage just quoted, does not concern only ourselves but also the persons entrusted to us, therefore it also concerns the leaders of the community and the people. entrusted to them; in addition to being a right, self-defense is a duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in 2265: “Legitimate defense, as well as a right, can also be a grave duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be placed in a state of harmlessness. "

In this line of right biblical interpretation it must be remembered that there is also a just war, fought in self-defense.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church affirms in n. 500: “A war of aggression is inherently immoral. In the tragic case in which it is unleashed, the leaders of an attacked state have the right and the duty to organize the defense even using the force of arms. (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2265) The use of force, to be lawful, must meet certain rigorous conditions: “- that the damage caused by the aggressor to the nation or to the community of nations is lasting, serious and certain; - that all other means of ending it have proved impractical or ineffective; - that there are well-founded conditions for success; - that the use of arms does not cause evils and disorders more serious than the evil to be eliminated. In evaluating this condition, the power of modern means of destruction plays a major role. These are the traditional elements listed in the so-called "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions of moral legitimacy belongs to the prudent judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good ". (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2039)" [224]

Says s. Alfonso regarding the just war: “… about hostes in bello justo liceat ea omnia facere, quae ad finem belli sunt necessary, v. gr. occidere, desoliare, etc .: innocentes tamen (quo nomine intelliguntur pueri qui arma gestare non possunt, mulieres, senes, religious, clerics, pilgrims, mercatores et rustici) directe vita spoliari non possunt. "[225]

Regarding the enemies it is permissible, in a just war, to do all those things that are necessary for the end of the war, that is to kill, strip, etc. the innocent, however, cannot be killed.

Now, in the case of a just war, that is, a war of legitimate defense, situations can arise in which the nation that legitimately defends itself must, during this war, hit armed people, armed convoys, armed enemy vehicles, etc. that they are not his current but only potential attackers; let's think about the case, p. ex. , that this nation strikes armed troops who are heading towards the war front but have not yet arrived there and have not started firing at those who legitimately defend themselves ... This must make us understand that, in the context of the just war, it is permissible to attack those who , among the enemies, he is a serious danger, that is, he is a serious potential aggressor even if not the actual aggressor.

God enlighten us better and better.

The just war discourse helps us to better enter the field of the death penalty because it presents us with cases in which it is necessary to hit dangerous people even if they are not attacking us at the moment ... in the case of the death penalty, the death penalty is not imposed on people who are current aggressors of someone but to people who have done serious harm and are potential aggressors; I point out in this regard that certain criminals can also attack their jailers and therefore even in prison they are a current danger ...

Evangelium Vitae presents the lawfulness of the death penalty as a truth that is closely linked to legitimate defense and that emerges from the Bible and from the sound interpretation of it.

Evangelium Vitae affirms in line with the Gospel and Tradition: "56. The problem of the death penalty is also placed within this horizon ... The public authority must be the victor of the violation of personal and social rights by imposing an adequate atonement for the crime, as a condition for being readmitted to exercise one's freedom. ... It is clear that, precisely in order to achieve all these purposes, the extent and quality of the sentence must be carefully evaluated and decided, and must not reach the extreme extent of the suppression of the offender except in cases of absolute necessity, that is when the defense of the society was not possible otherwise. ... In any case, the principle indicated by the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid, according to which "if the bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives from the aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of people, the will limit them to these means, since they respond better to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person ". (2267)"[226]

If it is not possible to make a criminal recognized as the perpetrator of serious crimes certainly harmless with adequate prison systems, it is lawful to suppress him to defend the community from the serious damage that his wickedness could cause it; I point out that precisely in such a situation the head of the community who kept such a criminal alive would endanger the community and would fail in his duty to protect it. A community is not really protected by blocking even with their death only the current aggressors, it is in fact necessary to block adequately, even with death, if necessary, even those who are a real danger to the community. Just as it is right to effectively incarcerate a criminal also to defend the community from repeating his crimes, so it is right to kill a dangerous criminal, in case he cannot be effectively incarcerated, to defend the community from repeating his crimes.

God enlighten us better and better.

As we can see, the problem that emerges from what has just been said is the problem of the danger that the criminal creates for the community if it cannot effectively imprison it ... the civil authority is required to protect public order and the safety of people not only from current aggressors but also by those who, on the basis of their crimes, are considered real dangers to the community and in this sense are potential aggressors ...

Prudence requires that the person or authority effectively guards himself from dangers and therefore not only from current aggressors but also from potential aggressors, that is, from those who constitute a serious danger for the future ...

A serious recklessness would be for a parent to let a child go to an area where there are dangerous and poorly guarded lions, serious recklessness would be for a parent to let a beautiful daughter go at night with little protection among known rapists, severe recklessness it is that of the rulers who, unable to effectively incarcerate dangerous criminals, let them live in poorly guarded prisons in which they can kill prison guards or other prisoners and from which they can escape easily enough to continue their criminal work.

The prudence that leads us to flee the next opportunity for sin, that is, a situation that is dangerous in that it leads us to sin, also leads us to avoid that we and the people whose lives we are responsible for are in serious danger.

In particular, it is caution, as part of prudence, that leads us to avoid dangers: “Among the evils that man must avoid some occur in the majority of cases. And these can be embraced by reason. And caution is ordered against them, to avoid them altogether, or to make them less harmful. Others, on the other hand, happen rarely and by chance. And these, being infinite, escape reason, and man cannot effectively protect himself from them: although prudence prepares man to suffer the blows of fortune less severely. " [227] Experience shows that certain criminals who have committed serious crimes have a particular tendency to commit them again, they are a danger to the community. Gravely reckless is the ruler who, not having an effective and safe prison system, puts criminals who are dangerous for the community in prison. In another text, s. Thomas specifies "quicumque non cavet pericula, videtur contemnere id cuius detrimentum pericula inducere possunt" (Quodlibet III, q. 4 a. 1 ad 3) whoever does not pay attention to dangers shows that he despises what dangers can induce damage. Whoever does not pay attention, therefore, to the danger that certain criminals can cause for a community, shows that they despise the community itself and the life of those who can be killed or seriously damaged by such criminals. Charity makes rulers prudent and cautious because it leads them to love, in Christ, the community they lead and therefore not to expose it to clearly foreseeable dangers.

A community is not really protected by blocking even with their death only the current aggressors, it is in fact necessary to block adequately, even with death, if necessary, even those who are a real danger to the community. Just as it is right to effectively incarcerate a criminal also to defend the community from repeating his crimes, so it is right to kill a dangerous criminal, in case he cannot be effectively incarcerated, to defend the community from repeating his crimes.

Some may think that the fact that the criminal can convert must lead us not to apply the death penalty ... but in reality even those who attack us can convert ... and a people who attack our nation can convert even more, but the sound doctrine , as seen, it also gives us the possibility to kill the unjust aggressor and gives us the possibility of waging a just war against the enemies even though those people can convert ... The people we kill in the context of self-defense and just war could convert , if they remained alive ... but this does not mean that we can kill them ... St. Thomas affirms: "The fact that the wicked can change themselves while they live, does not mean that they can rightly be killed: since the danger deriving from their living is more serious and more certain than the hoped-for good of their amendment. "[228] As s. Thomas, therefore, the death penalty is lawful because the danger deriving from the living of the wicked is graver and more certain than the hoped-for good of their amendment. If the prison system is really effective, the criminal is placed in an effectively guarded prison and the danger, in a certain way, ceases both for the citizens and for the jailers and for other inmates but if there is no such effective system, the danger remains, and it is a danger that s. Thomas indicates as more serious and more certain than his amendment.

As mentioned above, I repeat here too, the prudent and cautious person, who truly loves the community in Christ understands very well what we are saying in the light of charity. to whom dangers can induce harm (cf. Quodlibet III, q. 4 a. 1 ad 3) rulers who are not attentive to dangers and do not ponder them well show that they despise the community that can be damaged by such dangers.

Moreover, it should also be noted that the most wicked criminals normally create problems even in prison for other inmates and can also kill them as they can kill jailers and that normally the costs that a community has to incur to keep certain criminals harmless in prison and avoid who do not kill other inmates or jailers or escape from such places of confinement, obviously the resources that go for such purposes cannot be used for the fight against hunger, for the fight against diseases etc. this obviously causes the deaths of many innocent people while the criminals are kept well alive. I do not know if any experts have ever addressed this topic but it must be realized that the huge resources that a community must pour into the prison area cannot be used for other purposes such as the fight against hunger and disease ... and that therefore many innocent people die of hunger, disease in many parts of the world ... We must therefore ask ourselves to what extent, even in very rich nations, it is right to want to save the lives of certain criminals who commit particularly serious crimes, by removing resources that bring the life of so many innocent people ...

God enlighten us better and better.

l) The death penalty in the Jewish tradition.

With regard to the death penalty in the Jewish tradition, these interesting articles can be used and consulted free of charge: Haim Hermann Cohn, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Menachem Elon "Capital punishment" in "Encyclopedia Judaica", The Gale Group 2008[229]; Marcus Jastrow, S. Mendelsohn "Capital punishment" Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-1906, New York and London[230]

The text by Haim Hermann Cohn, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Menachem Elon offers in particular, interesting and current indications, first of all it warns us that, on the basis of the A. Testament, Talmudic law distinguished four methods of judicial execution: stoning, burning, killing and strangulation, then specifies that it is extremely difficult to determine whether the aforementioned methods of capital punishment reflect the actual practice, or whether they were academic discussions; academic argument is that according to some a Sanhedrin who puts a man to death once in seven years or once in 70 years is called a murderer; R. Akiva and R. Tarfon affirm, in the same discussion, that if they had been in the Sanhedrin, the death sentence would never have been pronounced, but still others affirm, very realistically, that if the death penalty were eliminated, the number of killings would multiply. Israel. In the Nagar judgment (pp. 163-71) Judge Elon discussed the various developments in Jewish law with respect to the death penalty and explained that the above point of view of R. Akiva and R. Tarfon, which went in the sense of the total abolition of the death penalty, was a minority point of view, which deserved the ironic reproach of the rabbis R. Simeon b. Gamaliel that if Akiva and Tarfon had done so they would have multiplied the number of murderers in Israel; an absolute moratorium on the execution of death sentences against murderers would lead to the loss of the deterrent power of the court, and thus would lead to increased bloodshed.[231]

In this line, the indications of the Jewish tradition are well understood in the sense of the lawfulness of the death penalty and in fact even if according to the purest law the competence to inflict capital punishment ceased with the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish courts continued, wherever they had the power. , to carry out death sentences and not only for homicide crimes but also for other crimes considered, according to the prevailing circumstances at the time, as particularly dangerous or hateful, or even only for crimes distinct from those originally punishable by law. In the Jewish tradition, more precisely, we read that even if there is no jurisdiction outside the Land of Israel for capital punishment, flogging or fines, if, however, a Jewish court, outside the Holy Land, considers it to be a 'requirement of time, as crime is rampant among the people, can impose: the death penalty, monetary fines or other punishments; however, in order to impose such a penalty, there is clear evidence of the fact that a certain person has committed this crime because it is better for guilty people to be free than for a single innocent person to be put to death.[232]

Regarding this jurisdiction exercised outside the land of Israel, it must be said:

1) the Spanish Jewish community enjoyed extensive criminal jurisdiction, including the power to inflict the death penalty, for a long period; such jurisdiction also existed in the Jewish community of Poland;

2) in most cases, the execution of death sentences was probably left to the discretion of the persons assigned by the judge to execute it [233]

Regarding the evidence needed to sentence someone to the death penalty it must be said that
the Supreme Court of Israel held in the Nagar case that although it is necessary to exercise capital jurisdiction and convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, in violation of the provisions of the original Jewish law, the evidence must be such that the judges believe it to be the truth, that the accusation must prove well founded and the only intention must be to pursue justice and truth. The Court, in the case in question, resumed Maimonides' comments warning those who will sentence someone to death to be very careful in the exercise of this special jurisdiction with which the death penalty is imposed, so that human dignity is not violated more than necessary. : Judges should always act as God's ministers and should not take a frivolous attitude towards human dignity.[234]

It is interesting to consider the theological significance of the death penalty in rabbinic thought, and not only its penal and deterrent functions as conceived by secular society. The famous Rabbi Neusner stated that: “In the Halakhic context, the death penalty achieves atonement of sin, leading to the resurrection at the end of days. It is an act of mercy, atoning for the sin that otherwise traps the sinner / criminal in death. … The Mishnah interprets the death penalty as a medium of atonement in preparation for judgment leading to resurrection, just as the theology of the Passion narratives has always maintained. For both the Mishnah and the Gospels, the death penalty is a means to an end. It does not mark the end but the beginning. The trial and crucifixion of Christ for Christianity, like the trial and execution of the Israelite criminal or sinner for Judaism, form necessary steps toward the redemption of humanity from death, as both religions have maintained, each in its own idiom. …. " [235] In the halakhic context, that is of the Law, therefore, the death penalty obtains the atonement of sin, leading to the resurrection at the end of the days, therefore it is an act of mercy, of atonement for sin that otherwise traps the sinner / criminal in death. The Mishnah interprets the death penalty as a means of atonement in preparation for the judgment leading to the resurrection, just like the theology of the Passion. For both the Mishnah and the Gospels, the death penalty is a means to an end. It does not mark the end but the beginning. The trial and crucifixion of Christ for Christianity, like the trial and execution of the Israelite criminal or sinner for Judaism, are necessary steps towards the redemption of mankind from death, as both religions have argued, each in its own language. , says Neusner. Neusner himself explains in more detail that for monotheism, God will eventually restore that perfection that was fixed in his original plan for creation and death, coming because of sin, will die, the dead will be resurrected and judged on the basis of their deeds. in this life, and most of them, having been justified, will go to eternal life in the world to come.[236]

Scripture indicates that justice ultimately prevails and that God's mercy ultimately manifests itself fully. Life cannot end in the grave. And since God is righteous, the sinner or criminal survives his sin or crime by atonement, in particular, paying with his life here and now, so that at the resurrection he can resume life, along with all Israel. This is why the culminating moment in the Law comes at the end of the long catalog of those sins and crimes punished with capital punishment; along this line, the Talmud concludes and culminates its version with the statement, "all Israel has a part in the world to come, except ..." The Law takes for granted the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the life of the world that will come beyond death. From this perspective, death becomes an event in life but not the end of life; and even the death penalty does not mark the total annihilation of the person of the sinner or criminal; because he pays for his crime or sin in this life, he is ready for the final judgment with all the rest of supernatural Israel. Having been judged he will find his way into the life of the world along with all the others.[237] Neusner quotes Joshua 7,25:XNUMX and states that the sinner is punished with death here on earth for his eternal salvation. [238]

Thus at the very center of the halakic exposition is the theological principle that the death penalty opens the way to eternal life: all Israel, with specified exceptions, inherits the world to come; these are those who have no part in the world to come: those who say that the resurrection of the dead is a teaching that does not derive from the Torah, and that the Torah does not come from Heaven and the Epicureans. The criminal executed with the death penalty does not specifically figure among those who will not have eternal life, unless he is among those indicated above, i.e. among those who voluntarily challenge God in matters of eternity.

And the whole construction of the continuing exposition of the Sanhedrin-Makkot aims to make this simple statement: the criminal, having the image and likeness of God, pays the penalty for his crime in this world but like the rest of Israel he will resist the injustice and, rehabilitated, he will enjoy the world to come.[239]

In conclusion, the Jewish tradition, in the biblical line, considers the death penalty lawful in some cases and insists a lot on attention to the human dignity of the person accused and then sentenced and on the real evidence of the crime committed.

3) More direct responses to Pope Francis' erroneous statements on the death penalty.

For our purpose it is important to state first of all that, as can be clearly seen, the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia are in sharp contrast with the Bible and the Holy Tradition ... To affirm that the death penalty is to be absolutely forbidden is completely contrary to sound doctrine and natural law: as man can defend himself from the unjust aggressor, so can and must, in certain cases, the State and this defense implies the lawfulness in some cases of the death penalty. Certainly there are governments that apply the death penalty not according to sound morals and that kill unjustly but this does not mean that we should "throw the child out with the bathwater" that is, it does not mean that the death penalty is always morally illicit; sometimes this penalty is lawful, as we have seen, and must be applied for the good of the community and of the people and this does not go against the law of God

The affirmations of Amoris Laetitia, and also other affirmations of Pope Francis, contrast sharply with those of St. Thomas, therefore, it seems wrong to simply say that: “A second thing: some argue that under Amoris Laetitia there is no Catholic morality or, at least, it is not a sure morality. On this I want to reiterate clearly that the morality of Amoris Laetitia is Thomistic, that of the great Thomas. You can talk about it with a great theologian, one of the best of today and one of the most mature, Cardinal Schönborn. I want to say this to help people who believe that morality is pure casuistry. Help them realize that the great Thomas possesses a great wealth, which is still capable of inspiring us today. " [240]

It seems wrong to say simply: "For your peace of mind, I must tell you that everything written in the Exhortation - and I take the words of a great theologian who was secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Schönborn, who he presented - everything is Thomistic, from start to finish. It is the sure doctrine. "[241] The Pope reiterated on various occasions that Amoris Laetitia follows St. Thomas, as we saw above, but also with regard to the lawfulness of the penalty this is not true!

Then I specify that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed: "Human life is sacred because from its very beginning it involves" the creative action of God "[242] and he remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, his only end (Cf. Const. past. Gaudium et Spes, 24.). Only God is the Lord of life from its beginning to its end: no one, under any circumstances, can claim the right to directly destroy an innocent human being.[243]"[244] The N. 2258 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is made by reporting this text in its entirety.

As can be clearly seen, the text just presented does not condemn the death penalty but condemns the killing of an innocent person and therefore does not absolutely condemn, in particular, the killing of a guilty person, hence the nn83 of Amoris Laetitia where it is affirmed "In the same way, the Church not only feels the urgency of affirming the right to natural death, avoiding therapeutic fury and euthanasia", but "firmly rejects the death penalty" (Relatio finalis 2015, 64. ). " and the passage from the Relatio Finalis of the Synod which states: "In the same way, the Church not only feels the urgency of affirming the right to natural death, avoiding therapeutic fury and euthanasia, but also takes care of the elderly, protects people with disabilities, assists the terminally ill, comforts the dying, firmly rejects the death penalty (cf. CCC, 2258). (Relatio Finalis of the Synod)…. they refer to and rely on a text (CCC 2258) in which in reality there is no mention of the absolute inadmissibility of the death penalty.

I add that some of the statements of Pope Francis are evidently false. Pope Francis states: "Saint John Paul II condemned the death penalty (cf. Encyclical letter Evangelium vitae, 56), as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2267)." But yes. John Paul II did not condemn the death penalty in those passages… in fact in Evangelium Vitae, n. 56 John Paul II wrote: ... "The problem of the death penalty is also located within this horizon, on which there is a growing trend in the Church as well as in civil society that calls for a very limited application and indeed a total abolition . ...

It is clear that ... the extent and quality of the sentence must be carefully evaluated and decided, and must not reach the extreme extent of the suppression of the offender except in cases of absolute necessity, that is, when the defense of society was not possible otherwise. Today, however, following the increasingly adequate organization of the penal institution, these cases are now very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any case, the principle indicated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid, according to which "if the bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives from the aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, authority will be limited to these means, since they respond better to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person "."[245]

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the ed. typica fixed by s. John Paul II, at n. 2267 the death penalty is not condemned, in fact it is said: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, assuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty person, the use of the death penalty, when this was the only viable way to effectively defend the life of human beings from the unjust aggressor. … ”In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is also stated in n. 2265: “Legitimate defense, as well as a right, can also be a grave duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be placed in a state of harmlessness. "

As you can see s. John Paul II, declared that the doctrine on the lawfulness of the death penalty is traditional, that is, it belongs to the Tradition of the Church, moreover the s. Pontiff did not deny the moral principle that underlies the death penalty but rather reaffirmed it, he only said that "Today, in fact, following the possibilities available to the State to effectively suppress crime, rendering the person who has committed, without definitively depriving him of the possibility of redeeming himself, the cases of absolute necessity for the suppression of the offender "are now very rare, if not practically non-existent". " ... that is, perhaps today there are no cases in which the death penalty is necessary ... yes. John Paul II only made a hypothesis: perhaps in the current situation there are no cases in which someone has to be sentenced to death ...

Other statements of John Paul II must also be understood in this line “… the dignity of human life must never be denied, not even to those who have done great evil. Modern society has the tools to protect itself, without denying criminals the opportunity to repent. So I renew the appeal ... to abolish the death penalty, which is cruel and useless "[246] ... or other affirmations ... in fact in the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Ecclesia in America" ​​in paragraph 63 we read: "Nor can I forget the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty, when other" bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect people's safety ""

And in a message written on February 2, 2003, the Polish Pope said: “Nor can I forget the unnecessary use of the death penalty. . . A similar model of society is marked by the culture of death and is therefore in contrast with the Gospel message " [247] [248] As we can see, the Pope condemns the unnecessary use of the death penalty, that is, the use of the death penalty outside the right moral rules and in particular outside the cases that justify it, because there are cases in which it it is licit, as the Polish Pope explained well in the Catechism and in the "Evangelium Vitae" but there are others, very many, in which it is illicit.

By carefully reading the texts of St. John Paul II therefore does not find any absolute condemnation of the death penalty, the lawfulness of which is affirmed by Tradition and, as the famous moralist Fr. Lio[249] by natural law[250]. I remember that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says at n.1958: "The natural law is immutable (Cf Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 10: AAS 58 (1966) 1033.) and remains unaltered through changes in history; it remains under the evolution of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. " It is not possible to destroy this natural law, nor to tear it from the heart of man, even if some men go so far as to deny the principles of it. This law, even though denied and fought by some, always resurrects in the life of individuals and societies (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church at n.1958). St. Augustine stated in this regard: “Your law, Lord, clearly condemns theft, and so does the law written in the hearts of men, which not even their wickedness can erase. "." …. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies: "Your Law, Lord, clearly condemns theft, and so the law written in the hearts of men, a law that not even their wickedness can erase."[251] …. moreover, as s. John Paul II "8. The Roman Pontiff, in fact, has the "sacra potestas" to teach the truth of the Gospel, administer the sacraments and pastorally govern the Church in the name and with the authority of Christ, but this power does not include in itself any power over the natural divine law. or positive. " [252] The Pope has no power over the natural or positive divine law. Moreover, the lawfulness of the death penalty is clearly affirmed not only by the natural law but also by the revealed law, as we saw previously; the Bible clearly affirms this lawfulness.

Furthermore, given the continuous and absolute affirmation of the lawfulness of the death penalty, in certain situations, during 2000 years of the history of the Church in a clear and unequivocal way, we are obviously faced with an affirmation which evidently, as we will specify further below, belongs to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church and this magisterial affirmation is founded, as seen above, on Scripture itself and on Tradition.

I point out that in the Catechism, even after the change imposed by the Pope, it is clearly written at n. 2265 “Legitimate defense, as well as a right, can also be a grave duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be placed in a state of harmlessness. As such, the legitimate holders of authority have the right to also use weapons to repel the aggressors of the civil community entrusted to their responsibility ”. It should be noted in particular that: “Legitimate defense, as well as a right, can also be a grave duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that the unjust aggressor be placed in a state of harmlessness. "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2265) Therefore the unjust aggressor must be placed in a state of harmlessness, but if the prison system cannot ensure this in a stable and certain way, it is evident that, in some cases, the only way to put the aggressor in a state of harmlessness is to kill him.

And in fact, even today the death penalty remains perfectly valid in any State in which bloodless means are not sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of people. There are cases in which even today, the possibilities available to the community to effectively repress the crime by making the perpetrator harmless are upset and canceled ... think of the cases of criminal gangs that are real armies and that threaten one State or in the case of civil wars etc. or in the case of wars, in these cases and in other similar cases it happens that bloodless means are not sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of people; to note the fact that some particularly strong criminals are commanders of real armies who are also able to attack the prisons in which their leaders can be incarcerated and therefore can free them so that they can continue to do evil; it should also be noted that in certain attacks on the security of some States those responsible act with the support and military aid of other sometimes very powerful States ... it is evident that in these cases the bloodless means are often not sufficient to protect the security of people, to defend against one of such attackers, even though he was captured, and therefore to avoid the death penalty.

What has just been said radically refutes the following statement: “… since today's society has more effective detention systems, the death penalty is unnecessary as a protection for the life of innocent people. "[253]

Unfortunately, the state does not always have such effective detention systems, as I said above; the death penalty therefore remains in some particular cases entirely lawful to defend the nation and in particular the innocent.

The death penalty is therefore not always inadmissible.

It seems to me also important to note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its editio typica, by s. John Paul II: "... it is the result of a very large collaboration: it was developed in six years of intense work conducted in a spirit of attentive openness and with a passionate ardor"[254] I do not think the same can be said of this "correction" made by Pope Francis, which is an obvious error.

Pope Francis wants to pass his changes in the doctrine on the death penalty as a development of the teaching of the Church, so he says: "Here we are not in the presence of any contradiction with the teaching of the past"[255] Unfortunately these papal statements, like others of his that we are seeing, are not true: it is a clear error, an evident change in Catholic doctrine, a deviation from the sound doctrine of Pope Francis' doctrine that the death penalty is inadmissible.

Some statements that we find in the "Brothers all" appear equally deviant and erroneous.[256] and concerning the death penalty.

In this Encyclical it is stated in n. 265. “From the early centuries of the Church, some were clearly opposed to capital punishment. For example, Lactantius argued that "no distinction should be made: it will always be a crime to kill a man." (Divinae Institutiones VI, 20, 17: PL 6, 708.) "As Thompson points out, however, and as we saw above, in "De Ira Dei", Lactantius warns the Stoics and Epicureans that the death penalty is acceptable if it is rightly inflicted for the interests of good against evil [257].
So Lactantius was not radically against the death penalty, in some cases he accepted it!

Again in "Brothers all" it is stated: "Pope Nicholas I exhorted:" Strive to free from the death penalty not only each of the innocent, but also all the guilty "(Epistula 97 (responsa ad Consulta bulgarorum), 25: PL 119, 991)[258] Pope Francis evidently wants to include Pope s. Nicholas I but this one in his answer to the Bulgarians [259] of the year 866, as we saw above, deals with a large number of dogmatic and canonical questions and reaffirms the legitimacy of the death penalty.[260]

Among other things s. In fact, Nicola affirms that: as for those who have slaughtered their relative it is good that the respectable laws find their application but if the guilty have taken refuge in the church, they are torn from the death promised by the laws.[261]

Obviously this means that respectable laws provided for the death penalty for those who killed their blood relatives and Pope Nicholas accepts that they apply, only asking that the guilty be spared death if they took refuge in church. St. Nicholas was not radically opposed, therefore, to the death penalty! … And he did not speak radically against the death penalty; how could he do it, on the other hand, if also Rom 13: 4, as we have seen, is very clear in granting to the rulers the right to kill the wicked?

It should also be considered that the Tradition clearly stated at that time that the death penalty was lawful and no author of the time considered the affirmations of St. Nicola to the Bulgarians because they, in reality, as mentioned, followed the Tradition and affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty. Nicholas I did not raise a protest against the death sentences imposed by the Christian kings of those times, yet it is evident that they were imposed… in fact, Nicholas I did not oppose the lawfulness of the death penalty. The affirmations of St. Nicholas I did not, at that time, determine the opposition to the death penalty in Rome or in Italy or elsewhere ... simply because they did not oppose the death penalty ... The idea that s. Nicholas is an abolitionist, an idea appears that arose when some abolitionist Catholics looked for footholds to their affirmations in the Tradition… unfortunately, however, they found, in this case, a false foothold; St. Nicholas was not against the death penalty, he simply tried to make Bulgarian law less cruel at the time and therefore tried to limit the cases in which to apply this penalty.

Furthermore, Pope Francis always states in "Brothers all"[262] that: "On the occasion of the trial against some murders who had murdered priests, St. Augustine asked the judge not to take the life of the murderers, and justified it in this way:" Not that we do not want to prevent it from being taken away from wicked individuals the freedom to commit crimes, but we wish that for the purpose it suffices that, by leaving them alive and without mutilating them in any part of the body, by applying the repressive laws, they are distracted from their insane agitation to be led back to a healthy and peaceful life, or that, withdrawn from their wicked works, let them be engaged in some useful work. … Indign yourself against iniquity so as not to forget humanity; do not vent the voluptuousness of revenge against the atrocities of sinners, but turn your will to heal their wounds ". ([263]. Evidently yes. Augustine is presented as opposed to the death penalty. We have seen extensively above, when we spoke of the doctrine of the Fathers on the death penalty which s. Augustine is not an abolitionist, he accepts it fully but only in cases where God really wants it, that is, only as a last resort!

St. Augustine, Thompson rightly states, specifies that the death penalty can only be inflicted by the competent authorities to promote the common good of society and as a deterrent to further criminal actions, it is an unusual measure that should only be used in extreme cases. necessity where there is no other option. (Thompson "Augustine and the Death Penalty" Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 198)

With the quotations from the aforementioned authors, the Pope obviously would like to suggest that his statements regarding the inadmissibility of the death penalty are a development of Catholic doctrine; in reality, as we are seeing, an in-depth study of the Bible, of Tradition and of the Magisterium shows the clear contradiction between sound Catholic doctrine and the innovations introduced by the current Pontiff, they are, therefore, errors that do not make Catholic doctrine evolve but they alter it.

I want to recall, with regard to the faith transmitted to us, an important magisterial affirmation: "Fourth: I sincerely welcome the doctrine of the faith transmitted to us by the apostles through the Orthodox fathers" in the same sense and always in the same content "; and for this I totally reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one meaning to another, different from what the Church previously believed " [264].

The First Vatican Council affirmed "The intelligence, science and wisdom also grow widely and intensely, for each one as well as for all, for one man as for the whole Church, according to the rhythms proper to each generation and to each time, but exclusively in their order, in the same belief, in the same sense and in the same thought ".[265]

It seems clear to me that the change made by the Pope on the doctrine relating to the death penalty is precisely a change and not a development of the doctrine that the Church has always supported; the statements of Pope Francis are placed outside the sound Catholic doctrine and in contrast with it, unfortunately.

The professor. Rutler said significantly: “Pope Francis says that his innovative teaching about him“ does not imply any contradiction ”of the Church's tradition but, one has to say reluctantly, it indeed does. The shift cannot be called a legitimate development of doctrine because it neglects all the classical criteria for authentic development, most especially what John Henry Newman named "preservation of type." And as capital punishment pertains to natural law, once it is rejected as intrinsically wrong, the same could happen to any aspect of natural law, not least the anthropology of Humanae Vitae or the moral doctrine of Veritatis Splendor. Abidingly conscious of the claims and burdens of the Church's highest office, that holy seat and high duty is diminished by neglect of its obligations to the perennial teachings of the fathers; and the faithful are at risk when they are offered confusion and superficiality in place of systematic thought. In short, the Vatican has become a theological Chernobyl. We are in dangerous territory. "[266]

Pope Francis states that his innovative teaching "does not imply any contradiction" of the Church's tradition but, it must be said reluctantly, it really does. Change cannot be called a legitimate development of doctrine because it neglects all the classical criteria for authentic development, particularly what John Henry Newman has termed "type conservation". And since capital punishment is about natural law, once rejected as inherently wrong, the same could happen with any aspect of natural law, not least the anthropology of Humanae Vitae or the moral doctrine of Veritatis Splendor. Given the burdens of the highest office of the Church, it is evident that the Holy See and its high duty regarding the Truth are damaged by the neglect of its obligations to the perennial teachings of the fathers. The faithful are at risk when confusion and superficiality are offered in place of systematic thinking. The Vatican has become a theological Chernobyl. We are in dangerous territory.

In the line of p. Rutler goes to prof. Echeverria stating "Here, I simply want to argue that, in light of the Lérinian distinction between" progress "and" change ", Francis's call for abolishing the death penalty is clearly a change and not progress, and hence it is in contradiction with the Church's teaching. … First, there is a clear contradiction between historic Catholic teaching and calling for the unqualfied abolition of the death penalty because the latter, Francis now insists, is always wrong. ... Second ... Despite Francis's claim to the contrary, he is in contradiction not only with "settled points of doctrine" ... but also with the 1995 Encylical Evangelium Vitae (nos. 55-56), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 2266 -2267), and the Compendium of the Church's Social Doctrine (no. 405) ... Third, as a matter of moral principle, the most important natural law defense of the death penalty is regarded as a matter of retributive justice. .. Clearly, Francis's position of him involves change and not progress. "[267]

In the light of Lérinian's distinction between "progress" and "change", Francis' request to abolish the death penalty is clearly a change and not a progress, and therefore is in contradiction with the teaching of the Church.

First, there is a clear contradiction between Catholic historical teaching and the demand for the unreserved abolition of the death penalty because the latter, Francis now insists, is always wrong. ...

Secondly, Francis's statement is in contradiction not only with "firm points of doctrine" ... but also with the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae of 1995 (nn. 55-56), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 2266-2267) ) and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (n. 405) ... and, I would add, with all the other magisterial documents on this point.

Thirdly, as a matter of moral doctrine, the most important defense of the natural law of the death penalty comes from retributive justice.

Retribution, Echeverria points out, justifies punishment and punishment requires that offenders obtain no more and no less than what is proportionate, or just, to their crime.

Clearly, concludes Echeverria, Francis's position involves changes and not progress. As seen, undoubtedly this statement by Pope Francis appears contrary to Scripture, Tradition and the 2000-year-old Magisterium, rightly understood.

I note that in the criticism of Amoris Laetitia made by 45 theologians it is said that the statement of AL 83: "The Church ... firmly rejects the death penalty", understood in the sense that the death penalty is always and everywhere unjust in itself and therefore that it can never rightly be inflicted by the State is a heretical affirmation, contrary to Holy Scripture and harmful.[268]

Pope Francis while seeking to undermine moral absolutes regarding the sixth commandment, particularly with regard to adultery and unclean acts against nature, creates a new moral absolute, since, contrary to what the Church has so far affirmed, he declares absolutely inadmissible. death penalty; the death penalty thus practically becomes an intrinsece malum ...

The Pope "opens" the doors to adulterers and to those who live in homosexual practice so that even without the intention of not sinning they receive the Sacraments, in clear contrast with the Bible and Tradition, the Pope himself affirms the absolute inadmissibility of the death penalty and his opposition to the Gospel ... equally in clear contrast with the Bible and Tradition ...

God enlighten us more and more.

I emphasize again with all the force that I am not saying here, nor has the Church ever said, that the death penalty is always lawful but that in some very particular and particularly serious cases it is lawful. We all know very well that in many or many cases the powerful kill their opponents by covering themselves with the mantle of "justice" through controlled trials and unjust death sentences and that often it is the weakest and most defenseless who are sentenced to death precisely because they do not have been able to defend himself effectively in trial etc .; Christian wisdom is certainly very well aware of all this… but it is also aware of the fact that in some very particular and particularly serious cases the death penalty is lawful, as we are seeing.

The problem of the powerful who use the death penalty in a perverse way and many other problems connected with it are not solved, simplistically, by radically changing Catholic doctrine, they are not solved by deviating from sound doctrine but are solved with our deepest conversion to Christ. and with the conversion of the world to Christ ... the more men will allow themselves to be guided by Christ, the more there will be true justice on earth, the more people will truly love each other and the more righteous use will be made of law and with it the death penalty.

The absolute ban on the death penalty affirmed by the Pope not only does not resolve the issue of the misuse of the death penalty by some governments but creates two problems that we will examine below.

1) By imposing the defense of criminals at all costs, it clearly exposes the smallest and most defenseless citizens to the attacks of such criminals, if in fact the death penalty can never be applied, it is prohibited even when the prison system fails to block the criminal so that he does not commit further crimes, an obvious consequence of this is that in some or in many cases the weakest and most defenseless will be attacked and probably even killed by these criminals as soon as they manage to free themselves from the weak bonds of this prison system ...

2) It suggests that the Pope can change the natural law and the positive divine law, which is not true, as we have seen [269].

Further, it should be remembered that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says at n.1958: "The natural law is immutable (Cf Vatican Council II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 10: AAS 58 (1966) 1033.) and remains unaltered through the changes of history; it remains under the evolution of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. " It is not possible to destroy this natural law, nor to tear it from the heart of man, even if some men go so far as to deny the principles of it. This law, even though denied and fought by some, always resurrects in the life of individuals and societies (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church at n.1958) ... the lawfulness of the death penalty which, as we have seen, is part of the natural law and also of the revealed Law will rise again and take total revenge on the errors of Pope Francis and the other abolitionists who now seem to triumph ...

God enlighten us more and more.

4) A group of Catholic intellectuals has publicly pointed out the Pope's error on the death penalty.

Christ reign.

Several Catholic intellectuals have pointed out their opposition to the Pope's error on the death penalty, they have signed an appeal to the Cardinals which states the following:

“Pope Francis has revised the Catechism of the Catholic Church  to read, "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." This statement has been understood by many, both inside and outside the Church, to teach that capital punishment is intrinsically immoral and thus is always illicit, even in principle. Though no Catholic is obliged to support the use of the death penalty in practice (and not all of the undersigned do support its use), to teach that capital punishment is always and intrinsically evil would contradict Scripture. That the death penalty can be a legitimate means of securing retributive justice is affirmed in Genesis 9: 6 and many other biblical texts, and the Church holds that Scripture cannot teach moral error. The legitimacy in principle of capital punishment is also the consistent teaching of the magisterium for two millennia. To contradict Scripture and tradition on this point would cast doubt on the credibility of the magisterium in general. ... "[270]

Below you will find the translation of the complete text of this appeal, offered by Sabino Paciolla's blog: "Pope Francis has revised the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it can now be read:" The death penalty is inadmissible because it is attentive to inviolability and dignity of the person ". This statement has been understood by many, both inside and outside the Church, as the teaching that capital punishment is inherently immoral and therefore always illicit, even in principle.
While no Catholic is obligated to support the use of the death penalty in practice (and not all of the undersigned support it), teaching that capital punishment is always and inherently evil would be in contradiction with Scripture. That the death penalty can be a legitimate means of ensuring retributive justice is stated in Genesis 9: 6 and many other biblical texts, and the Church holds that Scripture cannot teach moral error. The legitimacy of capital punishment in principle is also the coherent teaching of the magisterium for two millennia. Contrasting Scripture and Tradition on this point would cast doubt on the credibility of the magisterium in general. Concerned by this gravely scandalous situation, we want to exercise the right sanctioned by the Code of Canon Law of the Church, which in Canon 212 states:
Can. 212 - (…) The faithful have the right to manifest their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the Pastors of the Church. §3. In a way that is proportionate to the knowledge, competence and prestige they enjoy, they have the right, and indeed sometimes also the duty, to express to the sacred Pastors their thoughts on what concerns the good of the Church; and to make it known to the other faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and customs and respect for Pastors, also bearing in mind the common utility and dignity of the person. We are also guided by the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, who states: If faith were in danger, a subject would have to reproach his prelate even publicly. Therefore Paul, who was a subject of Peter, rebuked him in public, because of the imminent danger of scandal over the faith, and, as Augustine's glossary on Galatians 2,11:33 says, "Peter gave an example to the superiors, because if in a few moments away from the right path, they would not disdain being scolded by their submissives ”. (Summa Theologiae, part II-II, question 4, article 2, ad XNUMX)
For this reason, the undersigned issue the following appeal:
To their Most Reverend Eminences, the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,
Since it is a truth contained in the Word of God, and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Catholic Church, that criminals can legitimately be put to death by the civil power when this is necessary to preserve the just order in civil society, and since the The current Roman Pontiff has publicly manifested his refusal to teach this doctrine several times, and has rather led to great confusion in the Church by making it appear to contradict it, and by inserting in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a paragraph that will and is already making many people understand, believers and non-believers, who the Church considers, contrary to the Word of God, that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, we ask your Eminences to warn His Holiness that it is his duty to put an end to this scandal, to withdraw this paragraph from the Catechism, and to teach the genuine Word of God; and we affirm our conviction that this is a duty that seriously commits yourselves, before God and before the Church.
Sincerely." ("Capital punishment: appeal to the cardinals of the Catholic Church" www.sabinopaciolla.com 15.8.2018 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/pena-capitale-appello-ai-cardinali-della-chiesa-cattolica/)

God intervene and free the Church from these errors that Pope Francis spreads!

5) Further errors of Pope Francis regarding questions of moral theology close to the theme of the death penalty.

To affirm that the death penalty is to be absolutely and always forbidden, and therefore it is inadmissible, is completely contrary to sound doctrine and natural law: just as man can defend himself from an unjust aggressor, so can and must, in certain cases, do the state and this defense implies the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases. The death penalty is lawful, as we have seen, in some cases and must be applied for the good of the community and of the people but this does not go against the law of God because the commandment "do not kill" is not absolute, that is, it does not concern both innocent than the guilty!

Here another grave error of Pope Francis emerges, an error which is in contrast with the doctrine of the Church, and which we note in the following texts:

“A sign of hope is the development, in public opinion, of an increasingly widespread opposition to the death penalty, even if only as an instrument of legitimate social defense. … The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has absolute value and concerns both the innocent and the guilty. "[271]

The Pope adds: “A sign of hope is the development, in public opinion, of a growing opposition to the death penalty, even as an instrument of legitimate social defense. … It does not do justice to the victims, but it fuels revenge. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has an absolute value and includes both the innocent and the guilty. "[272]

The Pope speaks of the absolute value of the commandment not to kill which is valid for both the innocent and the guilty and says that the death penalty is inadmissible because it offends the inviolability of the human person, but a text from Donum Vitae, quoted by the Catechism of the Church Cattolica at no. 2258, states: "Human life is sacred because from its very beginning it involves" the creative action of God "[273] and he remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, his only end (Cf. Const. past. Gaudium et Spes, 24.). Only God is the Lord of life from its beginning to its end: no one, under any circumstances, can claim the right to directly destroy an innocent human being.[274]. "[275]

I emphasize that: no one, under any circumstances, can claim the right to directly destroy an innocent human being ... Absolutely inviolable is the innocent not the guilty!

We specify that the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith just mentioned, entitled "Donum vitae" has the written approval of St. John Paul II and that in several points this text reaffirms the truth that only the life of the innocent is absolutely inviolable: "The inviolability of the right to life of the innocent human being" from the moment of conception to death "[276] it is a sign and a requirement of the very inviolability of the person, to whom the Creator has given the gift of life. "[277]

The right to life of the innocent human being is inviolable, not that of the guilty human being.

Furthermore, this same document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states: "The human being must be respected and treated as a person from the moment of his conception and, therefore, from that same moment the rights of the person must be recognized, among which first of all the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. "[278] The right to life of the innocent human being is inviolable, not that of the guilty human being.

... and finally: "The inviolable right to life of every innocent human individual, the rights of the family, of the institution of marriage constitute fundamental moral values, because they concern the natural condition and the integral vocation of the human person, at the same time they are constitutive elements of civil society and its legal system. "[279] The right to life of the innocent human being is inviolable, not that of the guilty human being.

Indeed …. says the "Evangelium Vitae" in n. 57 "If such great attention must be paid to respect for every life, even that of the offender and the unjust aggressor, the commandment" Thou shalt not kill "has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person."[280] I stress: the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person, not when it refers to the guilty person!

Pius XII, deeming the death penalty perfectly lawful in some cases, said in a speech of 12 November 1944: "The fifth commandment - Non occides (Exod. 20, 13) -, ... As long as a man is not guilty, his life it is intangible, and therefore any act tending directly to destroy it is illegal, whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end, whether it is an embryonic life or in its full development or has now reached its end. Of the life of a man, not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty, God is the only lord! "[281] The life of the innocent is intangible, not that of the guilty!

In the same discourse we also read: ”Here likewise reason and faith draw the boundaries between the respective rights of society and the individual. … Not from it, but in the Creator himself, he has the right over his own body and over his life, and to the Creator he answers for the use he makes of it. From this it follows that the company cannot directly deprive him of that right, as long as he has not made himself punishable by such deprivation with a serious and proportionate crime. "

The life of the innocent is intangible, not that of the guilty!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 2260: “… The voluntary killing of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the" golden rule "and to the sanctity of the Creator. The law that prohibits this murder has universal validity: it obliges each and every one, always and everywhere. "

So it is inherently immoral to kill the innocent, not the guilty.

The same Catechism affirms in n. 2263: "The legitimate defense of persons and societies does not constitute an exception to the prohibition of killing the innocent, which consists of voluntary murder." The fifth commandment forbids killing the innocent, not those who have committed serious crimes or the unjust aggressor ...

The words of Pope Francis show that they contain a very serious error, this error is also in contrast with the Church's doctrine on legitimate defense and just war; in fact if the commandment not to kill has absolute value also with regard to the guilty one cannot kill the unjust aggressor not even to defend oneself, so if a State is attacked by another State not even to defend itself can kill those who attack it! All of this is clearly contrary to the Bible and Tradition.

However, we must acknowledge Pope Francis for having reaffirmed the lawfulness of legitimate defense: "It is therefore legitimate to enforce one's right to life, even when to do so it is necessary to inflict a fatal blow on one's aggressor (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. . 2264). " and he specified that: "The defense of the common good requires placing the aggressor in the condition of not being able to cause damage."; in the same speech, however, the Pope added: “… the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is always inadmissible because it damages the inviolability and dignity of the person. "[282]

Logic would like that if the commandment "do not kill" were absolute even for the guilty and if the human person were inviolable, even legitimate defense should not be lawful ... but I am happy that, beyond the more direct meaning of his words, the Pope reaffirmed the lawfulness of self-defense.

A further error by Pope Francis regarding issues connected with the death penalty is that the Pontiff affirms that the death penalty offends the inviolability of the human person.

I reply to this affirmation by reiterating that, as we have seen, in reality the human person is in some cases violable and that is precisely how much he becomes a danger for others…. self-defense states precisely this: the unjust aggressor can be killed. Inviolable is the innocent, not the guilty ... and in this line the Catechism of the Catholic Church, following sound doctrine, reaffirms the lawfulness of legitimate defense and just war, in fact in nos. 2263 ss affirms: “The legitimate defense of persons and societies does not constitute an exception to the prohibition of killing the innocent, killing in which voluntary murder consists. ... Those who defend their lives are not guilty of murder even if they are forced to inflict a fatal blow on their attacker ... Self-defense, as well as a right, can also be a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others ... . "

Furthermore, in Gaudium et Spes, with regard to the just war, we read: "As long as the danger of war exists and there is no competent international authority, equipped with effective forces, once all the possibilities for a peaceful settlement have been exhausted, it will not be possible to deny governments the right to a legitimate defense ”.[283]

At no. 2309 the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The strict conditions which justify a legitimate defense by military force must be rigorously considered. ... "

In the event of a just war, the rulers: ”… have the right and the duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. ... "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2310)

In the event of war, the moral law remains valid: "The Church and human reason declare the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflicts." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2312)… therefore: "Non-combatants, wounded soldiers and prisoners must be respected and treated with humanity." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2313) etc.

Equally the lawfulness of legitimate defense and just war are also affirmed in Evangelium Vitae at n. 55 which affirms regarding the fifth commandment: "Therefore, no one could renounce the right to defend oneself for lack of love for life or for oneself, but only by virtue of a heroic love ...

On the other hand, "legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for those who are responsible for the life of others, for the common good of the family or the civil community". Unfortunately, it happens that the need to place the aggressor in a position not to harm sometimes leads to his suppression. In this hypothesis, the fatal outcome must be attributed to the aggressor himself who exposed himself to it with his action, even if he was not morally responsible for lack of the use of reason. " [284]

…. As we can see, the fifth commandment has no absolute value and the human life of the guilty person is not inviolable, in fact the legitimate defense of individuals and states is lawful and sometimes necessary and this in some cases involves the suppression of the aggressor.

The statements of Pope Francis also on this point unfortunately constitute, in a subtle but very serious form, a subversion of Catholic moral doctrine…. they are in themselves dangerous and contrary to biblical and traditional teaching ...

God intervene and free the Church from these errors that Pope Francis spreads!

6) Reflections on the statements of some modern authors who have "prepared" or supported the errors of Pope Francis regarding the death penalty.

May the Truth guide us better and better.

Some Catholic authors, especially in recent decades, have prepared Pope Francis' statements on the death penalty. It seems interesting to me to examine some of their statements to clarify some issues that emerge through their writings and therefore to examine the moral judgment on the death penalty in greater depth with regard to various aspects.

As G. Concetti explained in his book: "Pena di morte" (ed. Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1993), the contestation of the legitimacy of the death penalty by Catholic theologians began at the end of 1700 and continued until the beginning of 1900 but in this period of about 200 years only a few isolated authors have implemented this challenge, think of Malanima, Zanghi, Keller, Ude; this dispute then developed, especially after the Second Vatican Council (see Concepts "Death Penalty" ed. Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1993 pp.22s)

Especially after the Second Vatican Council there are Catholic authors who oppose the lawfulness of the death penalty in the wake of the statements of various Episcopates who have spoken out against the death penalty. We read in a text by a Jesuit moralist: "El 8 de septiembre de 1978 aparecía en la primera página de l´Osservatore Romano a protest solemne por la ejecución de una mujer en los Estados Unidos señalando que la imposición de la pena capital es la mayor imaginable humillation. ...[285] (…) There is an abolitionist episcopal movement de la pena de muerte, surgido a raíz of the Second Vatican Council. The Conferencia Episcopal Canadiense, por ejemplo, if directed to the Parliament of aquel país el 6 de enero de 1973.… [286] ... [287] (...) In 1980 los obispos norteamericanos ...  [288]" [289]

After the Council, starting from a strong intervention published in L'Osservatore Romano, against the infliction of the death penalty on a woman in the United States, we note an abolitionist movement among the Bishops and some documents, in particular of the French and North American Bishops, treat of the death penalty.

In reality, the statements of the North American Bishops did not absolutely deny the legitimacy of the death penalty but only that it was justifiable in the concrete situation of the United States; the statements of the French Episcopate gathered in a 1978 document appeared to be more abolitionist, but these too said that the Church recognized the death penalty also on the basis of Rm 13,4 [290].

There were also some moralists who opposed the death penalty such as Concetti, Vidal, Blazquez, Ciccone etc. Below we will look at some of the claims made by some of them on this subject and we will also see what other authors in the abolitionist line claim.

God enlighten us better and better.

a) Some reflections on the affirmations of the theologian prof. Ciccone.

Let's first examine some things that prof. Lino Ciccone in the book "Do not kill" (Ed. Ares Milano 1988)

1) Biblical documentation.

Ciccone affirms that, although the death penalty is legitimized in the A. Testament, it was posed in very different terms from those in which it is posed today; according to Ciccone it was not used for the defense of society but was posed in completely different terms, furthermore Ciccone says that the TA offers indications contrary to the death penalty, for example. Jan. 4,14s

It seems clear to me for those who know the TA that the statements of L. Ciccone are obviously wrong, the death penalty in the TA was also imposed for the defense and more generally for the good of the community in fact, as Brugger explains: "Serious crimes against religion, the order of the family and community, and human life were all punished with death. For example, blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), sacrifice to foreign gods (Ex. 22:20, 32: 21–27, Deut. 13: 6–10, 17: 2–7), and working on the Sabbath ( Ex. 31: 12-14, 35: 2) were capital crimes; so, too, were false prophecy, the idolatrous dreaming of dreams, and sorcery and wizardry (Deut. 13: 5, Lev. 20:27, Ex. 22:18). "[291]

Serious crimes against religion, family and community order and human life were all punished with death. "A most serious crime in Israel, one against both the community and its religion, was the intentional killing of the innocent or intentional injury resulting in the death of the innocent (Gen. 9: 6, Ex. 21:12, Lev. 24 : 17, 21, Num. 35: 16–20, Deut. 19: 11–13)[292] A particularly serious crime in Israel, against the community and its religion, has been the intentional killing of the innocent or the intentional injury resulting in the death of the innocent. “Slain innocent blood defiled not only the murderer (Deut. 19:13) but also his larger household of him (Deut. 22: 8); en polluted his city and his land (Deut. 19:10, Num. 35:33, 2 Sam. 21: 1–2, Jer. 26:15, Ps. 106: 38) and even rendered barren the soil on which it was spilt (Gen. 4: 11–12). " [293] The innocent blood shed contaminated not only the killer but also his family, city and country. The Law punished those who sinned with death; this punishment was inflicted to atone for sin and therefore to defend the people of Israel from the divine punishment that struck the people for the sins of its members, this is particularly clear in the episode of Joshua who puts Achan to death (Joshua 7). the chapter shows the damages of sin and the imposition of the death penalty for the good of the nation and for its defense but these words are particularly significant: “The Israelites have sinned. They have transgressed the orders I had given. They dared to take for themselves something that had to be destroyed. They stole it and hid the year in their luggage. This is why the Israelites can no longer resist their enemies. From now on, they will flee in front of them: they have brought about extermination. I will no longer be on your side until you have destroyed the objects destined for extermination. Therefore make all the people perform a purification rite. Order them to do it for tomorrow. You will say for my part: Among you, Israelites, there are objects which I, the Lord, the God of Israel, had ordered to destroy. Until you have done this you will no longer be able to resist your enemies! " (Joshua 7, 11,13) We find the same basic idea in the massacre carried out by Elijah against the prophets of Baal (I Kings 18, 40), their sin was hurting all the people ... and had to be atoned for in fact with their death after it the rain returns on Israel (I Kings 18, 45s).

In the book of Leviticus we read: “If an Israelite or a foreigner, living in Israel, offers one of his children as a sacrifice to the god Moloch, he must be put to death. … If the inhabitants of the region close their eyes to such actions, to avoid putting this man to death, I will personally intervene against him and against his family; I will exclude them from the people of Israel, he and all those who join him in the idolatrous worship rendered to Molok. "(20,1.4-5)

THERE. The Testament therefore clearly affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty; this punishment is seen as an action of authority according to God's will for the defense and good of the community.

Even Ciccone's treatment of the New Testament in relation to the death penalty is gravely incomplete and clearly deviant, he avoids citing Rm 13 and other passages from the New Testament that Tradition places in support of the lawfulness of the death penalty. Brugger, while in favor of the inadmissibility of the death penalty, states: "The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be hardly any doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by New Testament authors."[294] The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be no doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by the New Testament authors and especially by the New Testament Author. The image we invariably receive when the New Testament recounts meetings with civil authorities in which death is at stake is that of a normal judicial practice, which is questioned only when it is thought to be unfairly exercised. [295]

Ciccone relies heavily on John 8 but as seen above this passage does not say anything about the death penalty itself. As we saw earlier when I spoke of the death penalty in the Bible, it must be said that the legitimacy of the death penalty, clearly stated in the Old Testament, is confirmed in the New Testament, albeit with a strong indication of the mitigation of penal discipline.

2) Ciccone's patristic documentation appears largely incomplete and the statements he makes are false, in fact he says that before the advent of Constantine there was a direct rejection of the death penalty by Christians ... unfortunately for him, things are very different from what he says, as you have been able to see in this book of mine in the part where I speak of the pre-Constantinian Fathers ... obviously the Fathers followed Scripture and in fact not only the Old but also the New Testament is not opposed to the death penalty, as you have been able to read in this chapter in the part relating to the teachings of the Bible about it and as we said a few lines above.

3) The papal and magisterial documentation presented by Ciccone appears largely incomplete. Ciccone affirms that the first explicit magisterial confirmation of the death penalty would be in the year 1208 ... but he does not present the letter from Innocent I to Exsuperius of 20.2.405 which, as seen, is extremely illuminating on the question: "The question arises about those who after Baptism they were public administrators and used only the instruments of torture or even issued the sentence of death. We do not read anything about them as defined by the ancients. It should be remembered that such powers were granted by God and that, to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, furthermore it was indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4) How could they condemn a behavior who did they see was granted by the authority of God? With regard to them, therefore, we continue to regulate ourselves as we have been regulated up to now, so that it does not appear that we subvert the discipline or that we go against the authority of the Lord. It is reserved for them to give an account of all their actions. " [296] The affirmations of St. Paul were and are too clear to want to clarify them further. The Popes on the basis of Scripture had absolute certainty of the lawfulness of the death penalty therefore, as seen, since no one attacked this truth they never bothered to deal with it in depth. The doctrinal problems were quite different and the Magisterium carried out investigations and rulings on them, on the other hand the lawfulness of the death penalty was a clear datum therefore, as seen, the Popes limited themselves to having this penalty applied without ever raising, in the face of many executions that took place, the voice against this practice. But when the Waldensians began to deny the right of the authorities to apply the death penalty, then the Church intervened and did the same when Wicleff and Hus spread their errors. Ciccone's documentation is largely incomplete and does not mention what we have said above:

- that in 1215, during the IV Lateran Council (XII Ecumenical), the canon Excommunicamus was adopted, which ordered the abandonment of heretics condemned "to secular powers" (Const. 3) ... with consequent imposition of the death penalty (COD p. 233 ff.) This text will pass into the decretals of Gregory IX[297]; the same solution will be adopted by the Council of Constance (ecumenical XVI) against the wyclifites (cf. COD pp. 414ss) and the Hussites (cf. COD p. 429, condemnation at the stake of Hus).

- that among the sentences condemned by the Council of Constance in Wicleff's doctrine there is the one according to which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of heretics to the secular arm in fact affirms that God cannot approve that one is civilly judged or civilly condemned (cf. COD p. 425, n.44)

-that among the sentences condemned in the doctrine of Hus by the Council of Constance there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of the heretics to the secular arm (cfr. COD p. 430, n.14)

-that Pope Martin V, in 1418, drafted a questionnaire to examine the doctrine professed by people suspected of wyclifism and hussism, in it explicitly asked the person if he believed in the possibility for prelates to appeal to the secular arm (Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum ”edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1272)… and therefore to have the death penalty inflicted.

-that Leo X, in 1520, also included this among Luther's errors: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit". [298]   The error for which Luther denies that the death penalty for heresy can be inflicted falls within the errors indicated by Leo X in this way:

we have seen that these same errors or articles are not Catholic, and should not be believed as such, but that they are contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and to Tradition, above all to the true and common interpretation of the divine Scriptures ... in fact it clearly derives from the same errors or from some that the same Church, which is governed by the Holy Spirit, errs and has always erred.[299]

- that the Roman Catechism taught the lawfulness of the death penalty[300].

-that Pope Leo XIII wrote in "Pastoralis Officii", an encyclical letter of 1881: "It is well established that both divine laws, both the one that has been proposed with the light of reason, and the one that has been promulgated with divinely inspired writings , absolutely forbid anyone from killing or injuring a man in the absence of a just public reason, unless forced by the need to defend his life. "[301]

Given the insufficient and erroneous basic documentation, it is not strange that, in Ciccone's book, the doors open to the absolute inadmissibility of the death penalty.

Then I remind everyone that the Papal State from when it existed until 1870 imposed the death penalty… Dunot writes: “Dernière preuve de la legitimité de la peine de mort, la pratique des souverains pontifes. Il ne s'agit ici que d'une justification indirect, ma il est évident que si une telle pratique était contraire à l'Évangile, elle n'aurait pas eu droit de cité dans les États pontificaux. Or c'est exactement le contraire qui s'observe. La peine de mort a été prévue et appliquée par les pontifes successifs jusqu'à la suppression des États pontificaux en 1870, et elle a même été prévue, par le Code pénal du Saint-Siège, pour les cas de tentatives d'assassinat sur la personne du pape, from 1929 to 1969 [42]. Dans leurs États, les papes n'ont pas fait montre d'une clémence abolitionniste envers les coupables. "([302] Last proof of the legitimacy of the death penalty, the practice of the pope sovereigns. This is only an indirect justification, but it is obvious that if this practice were contrary to the Gospel, it would not have had the right of citizenship in the Papal State. But the exact opposite is true. The death penalty was foreseen and applied by successive popes until the abolition of the Papal State in 1870. The Popes applied the death penalty in the Papal State and the Criminal Code of the Holy See provided for the death penalty until 1962 for those who attempted to kill the Pope.

Obviously all this was done in the absolute certainty that this penalty was legitimate according to the Law of God, in case of doubt it would have been illegal to apply this penalty. ...

Ciccone also affirmed (p. 83) that the statements of the theologian Concepts that deny the State the right to impose the death penalty due to the absolute inviolability of all human life, are taken from the "Magisterium" ... but the Magisterium par excellence which it is the Pontifical one who clearly specified that: “Human life is sacred because, from its very beginning, it involves the creative action of God and remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, its only end. Only God is the Lord of life from its beginning to its end: no one, under any circumstances, can claim the right to directly destroy an innocent human being "[303] This document, with the Pope's written approval, reaffirms this truth several times.

Evangelium Vitae at n. 57 states: "If such great attention must be paid to respect for every life, even that of the offender and the unjust aggressor, the commandment" Thou shalt not kill "has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person." If human life were always inviolable, legitimate defense would also be prohibited; on the other hand, legitimate defense is lawful and precisely for legitimate defense the community with the legitimate rulers has the right and the duty to defend itself by imposing the death penalty in some cases.

However, Ciccone affirms that the legitimate defense against the aggressor could be considered as an indirect, unwanted killing… and in this line the death penalty should be considered illicit while the legitimate defense remains lawful.

I remember that s. Thomas clearly states that only civil authority has the power from God to inflict punishments and therefore to inflict the death penalty… for this reason no one else can intentionally kill someone legitimately. Everyone can certainly defend themselves and precisely therefore can, according to St. Thomas, to carry out acts that lead to the death of the unjust aggressor, such acts, however, are lawful to the extent that the actions with a double effect that precisely cause the death of someone are lawful (cfr. II-II q. 64 a.7). According to some "probatus auctor" such as De Lugo and Waffelaert, however, the direct killing of an unjust aggressor is also lawful as long as it is chosen as a means and not as an end (cf. HB Merkelbach "Summa Theologiae Moralis", Desclée de Brouwer, Brugis - Belgica, 1962, II, p. 362)

A defenseless and innocent person cannot be killed directly like a little human being in his mother's womb but authority has from God the power to kill an unjust aggressor and, in some cases, one who is dangerous to the community because of the crimes. of him; Scripture interpreted in the light of Tradition is very clear in affirming it and also the right reason.

Ciccone's statements on the subject of the death penalty therefore appear profoundly inaccurate and deviant in their foundations and therefore in their conclusions.

Strangely, the article in La Civiltà Cattolica was not condemned ...

God intervene!

b) Reflections on an article in Civiltà Cattolica from 1981.

Moreover, also an article in the Civiltà Cattolica [304]that Ciccone mentions and on which he relies is subtly but clearly erroneous and deviant.

This article appears cleverly structured to lead out of sound doctrine; it lacks the classic structure of Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, it does not propose all the sound doctrine, at least in an effective synthesis, presented in 2000 years of Christianity; the classic structure, if well done, helps to show clearly what God and the Church really said on this issue and helps to unmask errors and heresies but also helps to understand what are the margins for a true development of doctrine.

The article in question fails to note with sufficient richness and precision that the Old Testament clearly affirmed the legitimacy of the death penalty and that Jesus never denied it as erroneous or illegitimate and in the wake of Christ, the New Testament has evidently fully confirmed… to such a point that s. Innocent I in the letter to Exsuperius writes “The question arises about those who after Baptism were public administrators and used only the instruments of torture or even issued the death sentence. We do not read anything about them as defined by the ancients. It should be remembered that such powers were granted by God and that, to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, furthermore it was indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4) How could they condemn a behavior who did they see was granted by the authority of God? With regard to them, therefore, we continue to regulate ourselves as we have been regulated up to now, so that it does not appear that we subvert the discipline or that we go against the authority of the Lord. It is reserved for them to give an account of all their actions. "[305].

Christians guided by the Holy Spirit understood from the beginning that Christ did not abolish the death penalty, on the contrary they understood that it is fully confirmed by Christ and therefore by the New Testament.

The biblical passages that the article of La Civiltà Cattolica presents to affirm that the Gospel is against the death penalty have been interpreted very differently for 2000 years, by saints and Doctors and Popes who, knowing the whole Bible and interpreting it correctly, have fully accepted and affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty.

The denial of the law of retaliation by Christ does not mean the denial of legitimate defense and the death penalty ... for 2000 years the Church through thousands of saints and Doctors and Fathers and Popes has clearly stated this!

God, who is Love and Justice, has total possession of human life and can punish the sinner with death, the Bible clearly shows; the minister of God precisely because he is guided by the Truth of God and according to the Law of God can legitimately inflict the death penalty. Just as judgment and condemnation pertain to God, in a similar way to the minister of God pertains to judgment and condemnation in the light of Truth.

On the basis of Tradition and of the text presented a few lines above which precisely refers to how the first Christians accepted the death penalty and as guided by Tradition Pope Innocent I affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty, many other Popes, as seen, not only they theoretically affirmed the legitimacy of the death penalty but asked the kings for it or had it imposed in the Papal States as seen.

The article in La Civiltà Cattolica also fails to underline that even before Constantine the Fathers affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty, as we have seen above, in the patristic documentation ... instead it highlights some affirmations that would seem to support that in that period they were absolutely opposed to this penalty ...

In this regard, it should be noted that the death penalty is not always and in any case lawful to the authority… it is lawful to the legitimate authority and it is lawful when it is imposed according to justice, according to the Truth of God; Unfortunately we know that in Roman times and even today the rulers often command not in the light of justice and truth and therefore often the death penalty is imposed against the divine will. In this light it is not strange that in the past those who admitted the legitimacy of the death penalty at the doctrinal level did not concretely admit the way of acting of the state authorities and therefore invited Christians not to be part of the army or not to be a judge so as not to having to find himself condemning or killing on the basis of unfair laws ... a Christian judge or soldier could have been found, for example. , to have to condemn and kill a person simply because they are Christian precisely because unfair laws have defined Christianity as a prohibited religion many times in history and sanctioned belonging to our religion with the death penalty!

The article in La Civiltà Cattolica also states that St. Nicholas I in his response to the Bulgarians ("Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum", PL 119, 978-1016) of the year 866 denied the death penalty, which is not true, as we have amply demonstrated above, in fact this holy Pontiff faces a large number of dogmatic and canonical questions and reaffirms the legitimacy of the death penalty.[306] however, tempering the severity of the law of those peoples. Thus the holy Pope Nicholas I writes, among other things: “XXVI. De his qui proximum, id est consanguineum suum, qui est frater, consobrinus, aut nepos, trucidaverint, venerandae leges proprium robur obtineant. Sed si ad ecclesiam convolaverint, mortis quidem legibus eruantur: poenitentiae vero, quam autistes loci, vel presbyier considerverit, absque dubio submittantur: Nolo, inquit Dominus, mortem peccatoris, sed ut convertatur, et vivat (Ezech. Xviii) ". Which essentially means that as for those who have slaughtered their kinsman it is good that the respectable laws find their application (therefore the death penalty can be applied) but if the guilty have taken refuge in the church, they are torn from the death promised by the laws.[307]

For those interested, it is possible to go and read the text of s. Nicola at the following link going to column 978 ff. (https://books.google.it/books?id=3iPuOWKAb0YC&printsec=frontcover&hl=it&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false…) so you can directly realize the errors diffused by the Civiltà Cattolica article on this text. As we said earlier when we talked about the popes' claims on the lawfulness of the death penalty, there are other clear indications that Pope Nicholas I is not an abolitionist on the death penalty.

The text of La Civiltà Cattolica insists on the fact that the common "medieval" Catholic doctrine was for the death penalty ...; but we must not forget that in our time speaking of "medieval" can be understood in a negative sense ... and we must not forget that the common Catholic patristic doctrine affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty and that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is essential to know the Catholic doctrine ... Cardinal Dulles states: "Returning to Christian Tradition, we can note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are almost unanimous in supporting the death penalty, even if some of them - such as Saint Ambrose (339 ca.-397 ) - exhort clerics not to pronounce death sentences or to serve as executors. "[308]

Brugger writes: “For the Fathers of the early Church, the authority of the state to kill malefactors is taken for granted. Opinions differed on whether Christians should hold offices whose responsibilities include the judging and carrying out of capital punishments — pre-Constantinian authors said they should not, those writing after ad 313 said they should — but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned. "[309]

For the early Church Fathers, the authority of the state to kill evildoers is taken for granted.

Brugger clearly shows in his book the various affirmations of the Fathers on the question of the death penalty and shows precisely how they absolutely unanimously affirm the lawfulness of the death penalty.[310].

Regarding the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is necessary to remember what Vatican Council I affirms “… no one should be allowed to interpret this Scripture…. against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. " (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius", c. 2: DS 3007)… The text of La Civiltà Cattolica does not even mention the text of s. Innocent I seen by us above, yet it is a well-known text that affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty.

The article in La Civiltà Cattolica states: “On the other hand, Jesus in the Gospel shows himself opposed to all forms of violence. Rather, he teaches how to suffer it, but forbids to oppose violence to violence. From this point of view, not only does he radically correct the Mosaic law, declaring the ancient law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" no longer legitimate, but he also prescribes not to oppose the wicked one and to offer those who strike the right cheek " the other also "(Mr 5,38: 39-XNUMX). Then, when he undergoes the supreme violence - the death penalty - his reaction is forgiveness, that is, the overcoming of violence, the breaking of the chain of vengeance which responds to death with death. "

Question: so yes. Thomas and all the Fathers and Doctors who affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty with him had read another Gospel and knew another Christ? ... and what Gospel did those Popes read who precisely guided by the authors just mentioned and above all by the Bible they executed so many criminals?

Violence as sinful and evil is condemned by Christ but the death penalty is not part of violence of this type as legitimate defense is not part of it ... justice must be distinguished from sinful violence: God wants justice not violence as sinful .

Moreover, Christ even affirms that the violent kidnap the kingdom of heaven: "The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent seize it." (Matthew 11,12:XNUMX) Obviously this is a non-sinful but holy violence.

The article then states that currently many theologians and many episcopates question the lawfulness of the death penalty and adds that they do so also thanks to a more appropriate exegesis of the Bible ... but I allow myself to answer that "strangely" for 2000 years this fine part of exegetes, Fathers, Doctors of the Church and Popes, men truly guided by the Holy Spirit, have clearly stated precisely on the basis of the Bible that the death penalty is lawful in some cases. And the Holy Spirit who particularly guided many of these authors is the principal Author of the Bible ... so he knows it well ...

Bessette and Feser in their study of the death penalty argued that the clear and consistent teaching of the Scriptures is that capital punishment is in principle legitimate; Since the Church holds that Scriptural teaching on matters of faith and morals is divinely inspired and inerrant, we also conclude that, for this reason alone, the radical claim that capital punishment is always and in principle wrong simply cannot be made consistent with Catholic orthodoxy and this judgment is further strengthened by the consistent teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, of the Popes and of authoritative ecclesiastical documents. ([311]

Card. Journet was able to significantly affirm, in this line: "Yes l'Évangile interdit aux États d'appliquer jamais la peine de mort, saint Paul lui-même alors a trahi l'Évangile"[312]

Strangely, the article in La Civiltà Cattolica was not condemned ...

c) Reflections on the book "Death Penalty" written by G. Concetti.

Even the book "Death Penalty", ed. Piemme 1993, written by G. Concetti, a Franciscan who has signed various articles on the death penalty also in the Vatican newspaper “Osservatore Romano”, affirms the absolute inadmissibility and immorality of the death penalty.

We examine this text below.

1) The biblical documentation of Concepts seems to me, on pages. 16 and 17 very concise and rather vague, but basically the theologian in question affirms that the Bible is in favor of the death penalty.

2) The patristic documentation is incomplete and deviant. On p. 18 of this text states that the pre-Constantinian ecclesiastical writers were opposed to the death penalty, which is false, as we have seen in the statements of those who have studied the question in depth.[313]  As Thompson puts it: “In the Stromata, Clement justifies capital punishment if the criminal cannot be reformed. The death is essential to prevent the wrongdoer from other crimes and to deter future offenders[314]”(Thompson“ Augustine and the Death Penalty ”Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 190) Clement of Alexandria, a famous Alexandrian theologian of the second and third centuries, therefore pre-Constantinian, clearly states that the death penalty is lawful.

3) The papal documentation is largely incomplete and is also erroneous.

Concetti stops only at the statements of Innocent I and does not mention the other Popes who have made statements on the death penalty after him up to s. Nicholas I.

Concepts completely errs on s. Nicholas I, considering it completely contrary to the death penalty, which is false, as I explained above when I presented the papal doctrine on this point.

Concepts also does not say:

- that in 1215, during the IV Lateran Council (XII Ecumenical), the canon Excommunicamus was adopted, which ordered the abandonment of heretics condemned "to secular powers" (Const. 3) ... with consequent imposition of the death penalty (COD p. 233 ff.) This text will pass into the decretals of Gregory IX [315]; the same solution will be adopted by the Council of Constance against the wyclifites (cf. COD pp. 414ss) and the Hussites (cf. COD p. 429, condemnation to the stake of Hus);

- that among the sentences condemned by the Council of Constance in Wicleff's doctrine there is the one according to which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of heretics to the secular arm in fact affirms that God cannot approve that one is civilly judged or civilly condemned (cf. COD p. 425, n.44)

-that among the sentences condemned in the doctrine of Hus by the Council of Constance there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of the heretics to the secular arm (cfr. COD p. 430, n.14)

-that Pope Martin V, in 1418, drew up a questionnaire to examine the doctrine professed by people suspected of wyclifism and hussism, in it he explicitly asked the person if he believed in the possibility for prelates to appeal to the secular arm [316] … And therefore to have the death penalty inflicted;

-Leo X gave the governor of the city the power to act against criminals and also to impose the death penalty on them. (“Etsi pro”, 1514, Bull., T. 5, p. 615) Julius III provided for the death penalty for holders of copies of the Talmud not purged of their claims against Christ (“Cum sicut”, 1554, Bull. , t. 6, p. 482) Paul IV foresaw it for the proxies (“Volens seleeribus”, 1558, Bull., t. 6, p. 538.) etc. ; Cyrille Dounot in her article “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église ”Revue Catholica 16.10.2018[317] mentions various other crimes which, on the basis of papal rulings, provided for the death penalty;

- that the Roman Catechism taught the lawfulness of the death penalty[318].

-that several Popes, such as Urban II Boniface VIII and many others I mentioned above, have made clear statements in favor of the death penalty;

-that up to 1870 capital punishments were carried out in the Papal State, which obviously indicates that the doctrine of the lawfulness of the death penalty was perfectly accepted by the Supreme Pontiffs. The Popes applied the death penalty in the Papal States and the Criminal Code of the Holy See provided for the death penalty until 1962 for anyone who tried to kill the Pope.

Obviously all this was done in the absolute certainty that this penalty was legitimate according to the Law of God, in case of doubt it would have been illegal to apply this penalty.

Also on p. 46 Concepts tries to put on the lips of Pope John Paul II that human life is always inviolable (G. Concetti "Death Penalty", ed. Piemme 1993 p. 46), even that of the criminal ... unfortunately for Concepts, however, beyond that the text of John Paul II that the Franciscan cited on the previous page also other texts of the same Pope indicate that the death penalty is legitimate in some cases and that therefore human life is not absolutely inviolable ... Absolutely inviolable is the life of 'innocent, not that of the criminal ... And in fact, as Conetti himself had to say a few pages later: the Catechism of the Catholic Church produced by John Paul II affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases and a document from the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith of 1987, entitled "Donum Vitae" and made with the written approval of the Pope himself, affirms that the life of the innocent is absolutely inviolable ... not that of the criminal: "The right inviolable to the life of every innocent human individual, the rights of the family, of the institution of marriage constitute fundamental moral values, because they concern the natural condition and the integral vocation of the human person, at the same time they are constitutive elements of civil society and its order. . "[319]

Moreover, it seems clear enough to me the inconsistency of Concepts himself who in the same book affirms the right to legitimate defense after having denied it at the root precisely by saying that human life is always inviolable; consistency wants that if human life is always inviolable: it can never be violated ... therefore legitimate defense and a just war are illicit as it also provides for the killing of the unjust aggressor ... and if they are attacking you you can never kill even for defend yourself and if they are going to kill children you cannot kill those killers to defend the children and if they are going to rape and kill innocent women and children you cannot kill those rapists and pedophiles and murderers ... precisely because human life is always inviolable ...

You understand well that all this is completely contrary to sound morality! Strangely, the book by Fr. Concepts had no convictions ...

d) Some reflections on N. Blazquez's statements about the death penalty.

God enlighten us better and better.

In his text "La Pena de muerte y biotanasia de estado" Vision Libros 2012 this author makes some statements that are interesting for us and we will examine this text in a particular way and some of his other writings.

1) The biblical documentation of Fr. Blazquez (pp. 29ss) appears absolutely insufficient and lacking the support of the Tradition which helps to interpret the Bible correctly.

First of all, when it comes to the Old Testament p. Blazquez emphasizes the existence of the law of retaliation[320]... but he does not specify well that in the Old Testament the death penalty was inflicted in many cases not on the basis of the law of retaliation, in fact the law of retaliation is a penalty: "... consisting in inflicting on the perpetrator of a personal injury an equal wound. ... It is a law repeatedly formulated in the Bible and precisely with the words of the Bible "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" it is more commonly indicated although its juridically precise definition is found in the phrase "it will be done to him as he did to other ... the same injury will be done to him that he did to the other "" ("Taglione" in Encyclopedia Online Treccani, www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/taglione/)

The law of retaliation was therefore inflicted on whoever was guilty of an injury to another person and consisted precisely in inflicting on the offender the same injury that he had inflicted on the victim.

As explained by card. Dulles “In the Old Testament the Mosaic law specifies no less than thirty-six serious sins punishable by execution by stoning, burning, beheading or strangulation. This list includes idolatry, the practice of magic, blasphemy, violation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, bestiality, pederasty and incest. The death penalty was considered particularly suitable as a punishment for murder because in the covenant with Noah God established the principle that "whoever sheds man's blood /" from man his blood will be shed, / "because in the image of God / "He made man" (Gen. 9, 6). In many cases we see how God justly punishes the guilty with death, as happened in Korah, Dathan and Abiram (cf. Num. 16). In other cases, people like Daniel and Mordecai are God's intermediaries when they rightly punish the guilty with death. "[321]

Brugger, has thoroughly examined the to. Testament on this subject and rightly states: "Death is prescribed more than forty times and for over twenty offenses throughout the various law codes of the books of the Pentateuch. 1 Serious crimes against religion, the order of the family and community, and human life were all punished with death. "[322] The death penalty was prescribed in the A. Testament more than 40 times and for about 20 crimes against religion, community, family and people's life.

In many cases, the application of the death penalty had nothing to do with the law of retaliation.

The professor. Blazquez does not point out, p. eg, that: the prophet Elijah killed the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) ... and it was not a question of "the law of retaliation" ...

When he speaks of the N. Testament obviously Blazquez emphasizes that Christ has suppressed the law of retaliation therefore he affirms that the death sentences set in the OT are literally suppressed by Christ, as mentioned, however, the death penalty was foreseen for many people who have nothing to do with the law of retaliation. So Blazquez's reasoning collapses miserably.

Blazquez also goes so far as to say that the death penalty was abolished by Christ and that it is incompatible with the Gospel[323] … Which is not true; Christ confirmed and perfected the ancient law but did not cancel the death penalty, as both s very well understood. Paul who, fundamentally, all the Fathers of the Church, as we have seen, and after them the Doctors and Popes whose unanimity on the subject, as we have seen, is evidently very significant; I still remember, moreover, that from its birth until 1870 the Papal State carried out death sentences ... and the Criminal Code of the Holy See provided for the death penalty until 1962 for anyone who tried to kill the Pope.[324]

Obviously, all this was done in the absolute certainty that this punishment was legitimate on the basis of the Bible and Tradition.

Christ came to perfect the Old Testament but not in the sense of the absolute condemnation of the death penalty… and the Church understood this very well! The chap. 8 of the Gospel of John, as we have seen, does not address the question of the death penalty in general… it is simply Christ's answer to those who wanted to ensnare him by proposing him a concrete case; Jesus, in that passage, does not speak of the death penalty in general but simply deals with a particular case; indeed, examined in depth, the passage from John 8, as I noted above, is rather a confirmation, in general, of the death penalty and in fact the Catholic Church, which knows the Gospel and the Bible well, has always taught that the of death is lawful in some cases, as we have seen.

God enlighten us better and better.

Cardinal Dulles affirms that in the New Testament the right of the state to put criminals to death appears to be taken for granted. “… In no case does Jesus deny that the State has the authority to inflict capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus mentions - with approval - the severe commandment according to which "whoever curses his father and mother should be put to death" (Mt 15, 4; Mk 7, 10 referring to Ex. 21, 7 ; cf. Lev. 20, 9). When Pilate reminds Jesus that he has the authority to crucify him, Jesus specifies that Pilate's authority comes to him from above, that is, from God (cf. Jn 19:11). Jesus is pleased with the words of the good thief, crucified next to him, when he admits that he and his companion receive the reward due for their actions (cf. Lk. 23, 41). "[325] As we can see, it is evident that the right of the State to put to death is taken for granted and is never denied, for this reason the first Christians evidently had nothing against the death penalty and the New Testament, in this line, when states that "when someone has violated the law of Moses, he is mercilessly put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Heb. 10, 28) it does not seem that there is any problem with this precept due to the fact that the penalty is imposed of death.

In reality, some other Gospel passage also presents us with the death penalty, think of the parable of Luke 19 which ends with these words: "And those of my enemies, who did not want me to become their king, bring them here and kill them in front of me. »" (Luke 19,27:XNUMX) Evidently we are faced with the death penalty ... and Christ does not say anything that suggests a condemnation of the death penalty ... on the contrary, he uses the example to clearly speak of the final condemnation that God reserves for his opponents .

Brugger, while in favor of the inadmissibility of the death penalty, affirms that the New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be no doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by the authors of the New Testament and especially by the Author of the New Testament. (cf E. Christian Brugger "Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition" University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63) Card. Dulles states: "No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty."[326]

The image we invariably receive when the New Testament recounts meetings with civil authorities in which death is at stake is that of a normal judicial practice, which is questioned only when it is thought to be unfairly exercised.[327] … The New Testament does not condemn the death penalty but rather takes it for granted and indeed in some of its passages it legitimizes it, think in particular of Rm 13,4.

Furthermore, as the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church says in n. 380: "The submission, not passive, but for reasons of conscience (cf. Rom 13,5: 13,1), to the established power responds to the order established by God. St. Paul defines the relations and duties of Christians towards the authorities (cf. Rom. 7- 12,17). ... The Apostle certainly does not intend to legitimize all power, but rather to help Christians "to do good before all men" (Rom 13,4:1), even in relations with authority, insofar as it is at the service of God for the good of the person (cf. Rom 2,1: 2; 3,1 Tim 13,4: 1-2,13; Tit 1: 2,14) and "for the just condemnation of those who do evil" (Rom 1: 2,17). St. Peter exhorts Christians to be "subject to every human institution for the love of the Lord" (1 Pt 2,15:XNUMX). The king and his governors have the task of "punishing the evildoers and rewarding the good" (XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX). Their authority must be "honored" (cf. XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX), that is, recognized, because God demands an upright behavior, which shuts "the mouth to the ignorance of fools" (XNUMX Pt XNUMX:XNUMX). ... " [328]

The Fathers who read, meditated and interpreted the Bible and therefore the New Testament did not detect any contradiction between the general acceptance of the death penalty and the Christian life. In Brugger's text we read: "If we grant two Patristic assumptions, namely, that political power is divinely instituted and that inherent in that power is the right to kill malefactors, then the idea that the exercise of political power is incompatible with membership in God's special community, the Church, suffers from an obvious tension. " [329]

Two patristic presuppositions must be kept in mind: political power is divinely instituted, inherent in that power is the right to kill criminals. These two presuppositions practically eliminate the idea that the exercise of political power and therefore of the death penalty is incompatible with belonging to the Church. State power is instituted by God and by God it has the right to kill evildoers, so the death penalty is lawful in some cases. Obviously the Fathers said this on the basis of the Bible ... and, in particular, the Gospel!

God enlighten us better and better.

The biblical documentation of Fr. Blazquez (pp. 29ss) appears absolutely insufficient and lacking the support of the Tradition which helps to interpret the Bible correctly… but the Tradition speaks of the lawfulness of the death penalty so we understand well that Fr. Blazquez radically cuts Tradition from the interpretation of biblical texts and presents biblical teaching in a partial way and aimed at denying the lawfulness of the death penalty ...

2) The patristic documentation that Blazquez reports (pp. 32ss) and which would suggest an absolute condemnation of the death penalty by the Fathers is a scientific failure and an example of distortion of the real data of history and of Patrology itself ... I hope frankly that the problem of Blazquez is the lack of deep study of the Fathers and I hope that he has not deliberately misinterpreted the real data ... "Strangely" however Blazquez is slow to present the affirmations of s. Augustine, especially some, we have seen that in reality he is. Augustine is not an abolitionist. Blazquez does not speak of the statements of d. Jerome and s. Ottato di Milevi, who were in favor of the death penalty ... does not specify well the thought of St. Ambrose and others as they basically accepted that the state could use the "sword" on the basis of Romans 13,4 ...

Compared to Blazquez's text, Brugger's text is a much deeper and above all impartial study of patristic texts on the death penalty and this author, as we have seen, concludes his study by saying: "For the Fathers of the early Church, the authority of the state to kill malefactors is taken for granted. Opinions differed on whether Christians should hold of - fices whose responsibilities include the judging and carrying out of capital punishments — pre-Constantinian authors said they should not, those writing after ad 313 said they should — but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned. "[330]

For the early Church Fathers it was taken for granted that the authority of the state had the power to kill evildoers. Opinions differed as to whether Christians were to hold positions whose responsibilities included judging and carrying out capital punishment - pre-Constantinian authors said they shouldn't, those writing after the 313 edict said they should - but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned.

3) The magisterial and papal documentation (pp. 43 ff.) Of Blazquez's text, like the patristic one, is distorted and presents false statements ... in fact it avoids citing papal texts in favor of the death penalty and cites others in the sense of inaccurately making them appear as completely opposed to it. Blazquez does not present the famous text of s. Innocent I, which we saw above, and does not present the other texts which we also saw above and which show how the Popes of the first and subsequent centuries accepted the lawfulness of the death penalty. Blazquez speaks of Pope Nicholas as opposed to the death penalty which is false, as we saw above.

God enlighten us better and better.

4) Moving on to the critique of Fr. Blazquez in s. Thomas, I point out first of all that: in the Middle Ages, Cardinal Dulles points out in the line of H. Lio, the main canonists and theologians affirmed the lawfulness of civil courts to pronounce the death penalty for very serious crimes such as murder and betrayal; S. Anselmo, s. Albert the Great[331] s. Bonaventure, s. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus supported the lawfulness of the death penalty by basing it on the authority of Scripture and the patristic tradition, and also provided illuminating arguments from reason.[332]

Saint Bonaventure, in a sermon on the precepts, attacks the Manicheans who distort Christian thinking about the commandment prohibiting killing and rejecting the death penalty, he responds to their errors by stating that: when the minister of the law carries out the death sentence according to (just) law, it is the law that kills man for a just cause and according to the spirit of justice, so that the executioner in this case executes not out of desire for revenge, but out of love for justice.[333]

The same s. Bonaventure states: “Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod in iudicialibus praecipitur interficere maleficos; dicendum, quod nulla est ibi contradictio, quia in un prohibetur homicidium innocentis et iusti, in alio praecipitur occisio malefici. In uno etiam prohibetur homicidium ex propria auctoritate, in alio iniungitur ex auctoritate Legis; et ista duo non habent oppositionem nec repugnantiam. "[334] The murder of the innocent is prohibited, not that of the criminal ...

St. Thomas together with these great Doctors of his time and together with practically all the Fathers, on the basis of Scripture, declares the death penalty lawful… and against St. Thomas but more generally against all of them p. Blazquez states: “Desde el point of view of the bien común, cabe preguntar a Santo Tomas is existe algún bien más comun a la sociedad que la vida de las personas, íncluida la de los delìncuentes. Por otra parte, un efecto objetivo malo, como es la muerte del reo, jamás podrá justificarse en nombre de una íntención buena. El fin bueno íntencional jamás podrá justíficar el use de medios objetiando malos, en cuyo ámbito se encuentra la penalty de muerte. Creemos that the analogy utilízada is not valid. Yes, medicine mata al enfermo deja de ser medicine, al menos para el enfermo que es víctima de her. Ahora bien, the penalty de muerte produces siempre la muerte del enfermo or delincuente. " [335]

From the point of view of the common good, says Blazquez, it is worth asking Santo Tomas if there is a more common good in society than people's lives, including that of criminals; on the other hand, an objective bad effect, such as the death of the prisoner, can never be justified in the name of a good intention; intentional good end can never justify the use of objectively bad means, and among these means is the death penalty. According to Blazquez, the analogy used by s. Thomas (for which as a gangrenous member is amputated for the salvation of the body, so a criminal is killed for the salvation of the community) is not valid, if medicine kills the patient it ceases to be medicine, at least for the sick person who is its victim, the death penalty always results in the death of the patient or the offender. Obviously, Blazquez does not accept that the good of the human life of society is greater than that of a single person and that if a man pays attention to the true good of the community, it is also legitimate to suppress it.

Blazquez says again speaking of a passage from the Theological Sum of St. Thomas: “Después de distinguir between the personal dimension and the social dimension of the human individual, to sign categorically that the vida de toda persona humana, en sí mísma considerada, es inviolable, aunque se trate de la vida de un pecador. … Santo Tomás,… afirma este principle, but después se olvída por complet de él, fijándose exclusively en la dimensìón social del hombre. Y… concluye lui de acuerdo with the arjstotélico principle of the todo y las partes, applying to las relaciones sociales presididas por el bien común. Al inocente hay que respetarle su vida di lui…. El delincuente or pecador, for the opposite, represents the corruptive part of myism, for lo que pudiera ser licito condenarle a muerte. "([336]

After having distinguished the personal and social dimensions of the human individual, St. Thomas, says Fr. Blazquez categorically states that the life of every human person, considered in itself, is inviolable, even if it is the life of a sinner; St. Thomas, continues Blasquez, affirms this principle, but then he forgets it completely, focusing exclusively on the social dimension of man and therefore concludes according to the Aristotelian principle of the whole and of the parts, applied to social relations presided over by the common good: the innocent he must be protected, instead the criminal or sinner represents the corrupting part of society, so it could be lawful to sentence him to death.

I reply to p. Blazquez pointing out first of all that with his statements he is not only opposed to s. Thomas but to all Catholic Tradition and the Bible as well as practically all men of all times who, as we said, have always considered the death penalty lawful.

The wisdom of all times, Christian and otherwise, actually stands against Blazquez.

To clarify the foundations of the lawfulness of the death penalty, it is necessary to recall two patristic principles: (1) civil rulers have a morally legitimate authority over life and death; (2) this authority has been conferred by God and is testified to in the scriptures[337]

Brugger adds: "If we grant two Patristic assumptions, namely, that political power is divinely instituted and that inherent in that power is the right to kill malefactors, then the idea that the exercise of political power is incompatible with membership in God's special community, the Church, suffers from an obvious tension. "[338]

Two patristic presuppositions must be kept in mind: political power is divinely instituted, inherent in that power is the right to kill criminals. These two presuppositions practically eliminate the idea that the exercise of political power and therefore of the death penalty is absolutely incompatible with belonging to the Church. State power is instituted by God and by God it has the right to kill evildoers, so the death penalty is lawful in some cases.

St. Thomas in the line of the Fathers affirms that God governs the world with his Providence [339] God governs other creatures through those endowed with intellect (cf. "Sum against the Gentiles" III c. 78) among the substances endowed with intelligence the inferior are governed by the superiors (cf. "Sum against the Gentiles" III c. 79) there is an arrangement between angels and between men (see "Sum against the Gentiles" III c. 80s)

In the “De Regno ad regem Cypri” the same s. Doctor affirms that man, in order to reach the end established for him by God, needs some man who directs him to it "... opus est aliquo leader, per quod directe debitum perveniatur ad finem." ("De Regno ad regem Cypri ", Lib. 1 chap. 1)

It is natural for man to live in society "Est igitur homini naturale quod in societate multorum vivat." (“De Regno ad regem Cypri”, lib. 1 chap. 1); man is a social and political animal that lives in the multitude: "... animal sociale et politicum, in multitudine vivens ..." ("De Regno ad regem Cypri", lib. 1 chap. 1)

And precisely only those who have public authority in human society are allowed to kill criminals: “… occidere malefactorem licitum est inquantum ordinatur ad salutem totius communitatis. Et ideo ad illum solum pertinet cui committitur cura communitatis conservandae, sicut ad medicum pertinet praecidere membrum putridum when ei commissa fuerit cura salutis totius corporis. Cura autem communis boni commissa est principibus habentibus publicam auctoritatem. Et ideo eis solum licet malefactores occidere, non autem privatis personis. " (II-II q. 64 a. 3) St. Thomas explains that: God, Lord of life and death, at times suppresses sinners immediately, at other times he gives them time to repent and human justice imitates him in a certain way also in this by making the great criminals die immediately and giving time to repent to those who are not great criminals (cf. IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 ad 2m).

God, Lord of life and death, therefore gave the power to the rulers to kill criminals in some cases.

Precisely by divine decree it is right to kill criminals in some cases; in this line s. Thomas specifies, contrary to what Blazquez states, that while the goal of killing an innocent is certainly an evil goal, it is not an evil goal but a good one to kill a criminal precisely because the good of the community and the innocents of the community must be protected from criminals. who want to attack it, yes. Thomas precisely explains that killing a man who sins can be good: like killing a beast in some cases is good, because it is harmful, in the same way in some cases it is good to kill a man because it is harmful for the true good of the community; a bad man, explains s. Thomas taking up Aristotle, he is worse and more harmful than a beast (cf. IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 ad 3).

The bad effect of killing a person, says Fr. Blazquez, it will never be possible to justify in the name of a good intention ... therefore, we specify, not even in the name of the good intention of defending oneself ... If Blazquez's words were true, that is, if it were intrinsically evil to kill a person, self-defense would also be illegal because it would always be illegal to kill a man; this makes us understand even better that Blazquez's statements are absurd and gravely erroneous ... it is not for nothing that Holy Scripture, all the Fathers and Doctors are against him ...

I also reply to p. Blasquez that the statements of s. Thomas according to which human life, considered in itself, is absolutely inviolable (II-II q. 64 a. 6) should be understood more generally, referring to the Thomist doctrine and more particularly to what s. Thomas says in a.1 and 2 of the same question 64 where he states: “No one sins by the fact that he uses a being for the purpose for which he was created. ... in the hierarchy of beings the less perfect ones are made for the more perfect ones " [340] “… The less perfect things are ordered to the perfect ones. Now any part is ordered to the whole as that which is less perfect is ordered to a perfect being. Therefore the part is by nature subordinate to the whole. "[341] … As a part is to the whole, so every man is to the whole community; therefore man is ordered to the community and subordinated to it as the part is ordered and subordinated to the whole. And therefore if a man is dangerous with his sins for the community, it is good to suppress him, for the true good of the whole of which man is a part. Man can not be killed for himself but for his sins which cause damage to the community (cf. II-II q. 64 a. 6).

Man is therefore ordained to the community but above all, says St. Thomas in I, q. 1 a. 1 man is ordained to God; man is first ordained to God and then to the community!

The community can suppress him, according to the divine law, only if it is harmful to it for his sins; the community cannot kill man for himself!

Faced with the affirmation of those who say: “… killing a man is in itself an evil: since we are bound to love all men with charity; and, according to Aristotle, friends “we want them to live and exist”. Therefore in no way is it lawful to kill a sinner. "[342] … S. Thomas, following the Bible, replies: “With sin man abandons the order of reason ... degenerating in some way into the enslavement of beasts, which implies subordination to the advantage of others. Thus, in fact, we read in the Scripture: "Not having understood his dignity, man descended to the level of senseless horses, and became similar to them" ... Therefore ... killing a man who sins can be good, as killing a beast: in fact a bad man ... is ... more harmful than a beast. ”II-II q. 64 a.2 ad. 3m translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

The community can suppress man only if he is harmful to it for his sins; the community cannot kill man for himself but only insofar as he damages it with his sins!

St. Thomas himself therefore, in art. 2, just seen, makes it clear in advance what he means in art. 6 of the same question where he states: "Considered in himself no man can be killed lawfully: because in everyone, even if a sinner, we must love nature, which was created by God, and which is destroyed by killing."[343]

Taking into account that man is ordained to God and to the community, and in the light of divine truth, the community cannot kill man for himself but can only kill him because with his sins he damages it!

In this line s. Thomas states: "... the killing of the guilty becomes lawful ... in view of the common good, which sin compromises"[344]

Here I want to underline some statements of s. Tommaso just seen:

- "... in the hierarchy of beings the less perfect ones are made for the more perfect ones"[345]

- “… any part is ordered to the whole as what is less perfect is ordered to a perfect being. Therefore the part is by nature subordinate to the whole. … And therefore if a man with his sins is dangerous and disruptive for the community, it is praiseworthy and healthy to suppress him, for the preservation of the common good; in fact, as St. Paul says: "A little ferment can corrupt the whole mass". "[346]

Man, therefore, is in a certain way, in the light of divine wisdom, for the community as the less perfect beings are for the most perfect (cf. II-II q. 64 a.1), every man is part of his community as a part is to the whole so every man is to the whole community; therefore man is, in the light of divine wisdom, ordered to the community and subordinate to it as the part is ordered and subordinated to the whole (cf. IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 co.) therefore if a man is dangerous with its sins for the community it is good to suppress, for the true good of the whole of which man is a part. Man can not be killed for himself but for his sins which cause damage to the community (cf. II-II q. 64 a. 6).

In the "Collationes in decem praeceptis" s. Thomas states that some said that it was always forbidden to kill the man for whom the secular judges were accused of being murderers but God did not take away from himself the power to kill and therefore it is lawful to kill by command of God, and who kills by command of God makes himself an instrument through which God kills the one who is to be killed.

Every divine law is a command from God, the leaders of the nations who according to the Truth condemn the wicked to death and kill the wicked are ministers of God (Rom 13: 4). What is lawful to God is lawful to his ministers by God's mandate. God does not sin by inflicting death for sin (Rom 6,23:7), therefore neither does the minister of God who kills by God's mandate. (“Collationes in decem praeceptis ", a. XNUMX); according to the divine law it is therefore permissible for leaders to kill evil people who for their sins are harmful to society.

What has just been said is very important in bringing out another error by Fr. Blazquez.

Blazquez does not accept the basic thesis of s. Thomas and therefore, as seen in the texts reported, he does not understand well the simile made by the holy Doctor, he does not share it and tries to reset its validity[347].

The simile reported by s. Thomas, according to whom it is permissible to cut a sick member of the body for the good of the body in a similar way it is permissible to kill an evil member of a community for the good of the same, was first presented by Clement of Alexandria[348] and it does not seem to me that anyone has ever excommunicated this very ancient author for such a similarity ... it must be understood correctly, as a simile that precisely concerns similar and not equal things: communities are very different from bodies and men are very different from the members of bodies but as for something that concerns them they are similar, in fact in some cases a part harmful to the whole can be laudably eliminated to save the whole because the part is ordered and subordinate to the whole and this is true both for some sick members in order to the salvation of the whole body and both for the case of criminals in order to the good of the whole community, as we have seen that s. Thomas clearly says (cf. II-II q. 64 aa.1 and 2).

The fundamental error of Blazquez lies precisely in not wanting to admit this right ordering of man to the community, an order that above all the Bible and Tradition but also non-Christian wisdom recognize and precisely for this reason they affirm that the death penalty is lawful in some cases.

In the line of s. Thomas, Pius XII affirmed: "The fifth commandment - Non occides (Exod. 20, 13) - ... As long as a man is not guilty, his life is intangible, and therefore any act tending directly to destroy it is illicit, whether it is such destruction is understood as an end or only as a means to an end, whether it is an embryonic life or in its full development or has now reached its end. Of the life of a man, not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty, God is the only lord! "[349]

In the same discourse we also read: ”Here likewise reason and faith draw the boundaries between the respective rights of society and the individual. … Not from it, but in the Creator himself, he has the right over his own body and over his life, and to the Creator he answers for the use he makes of it. From this it follows that the company cannot directly deprive him of that right, as long as he has not made himself punishable by such deprivation with a serious and proportionate crime. "

It should be added that while the criminal attends to the good of the community, the life of the righteous preserves and promotes the common good, in fact they are the best part of the community (cf. IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 co.). It is never lawful to kill a just man and whoever kills a just man sins, obviously, more gravely than he who, illegitimately doing justice by himself, kills the sinner; in the case in question, in particular, for three reasons the killing of a just person is more serious than that of a sinner: "First, because it harms a person who is bound to love more: and therefore his action is more in contrast with charity. Second, because he does a wrong to those who least deserve it: and therefore more offends justice. Third, because he deprives society of a greater good. Fourth, because he despises God more, having said those words for the righteous: “Whoever rejects you rejects me”. ”IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 6 ad 2 translation from the 2001 edition of the Theological Sum on CD Rom, ESD

Blazquez, moreover, evidently accepts, as emerges from these writings that I am examining[350]  that the community can punish a man but not that it can kill him because life is God's own work. It should be noted, however, that not only life but all the goods that man has come from God, they are God's own work, also freedom ... so if the community cannot touch the goods that come from God in the criminal it cannot even punish him by taking away the goods and above all the freedom that also come from God. The life of the criminal is not the property of the community, says Blazquez, therefore the community cannot take it away ... but not even the criminal's freedom of movement is the property of the community and yet Blazquez also recognizes that jailing a criminal is legitimate ...

In this line, the criminal could not be punished in any way for his crimes.

Physical life is one of the goods that God has given to man ... he has given him above all the spiritual life, and has given him many other goods ... The community can precisely, for serious reasons, take away from man for the good of the community itself some goods that he received from God: freedom, coexistence with loved ones etc. … And it can also take the physical life of the criminal… The criminal is executed for the good of the community (cf. IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 3 ad 2). Christianity does not break and does not destroy this profound truth, this natural law, yes. Tommaso understood this very well; Christianity has come to divinize man, and as God judges and also punishes and takes life, so man by God's mandate can and in some cases must also take the life of the criminal who endangers the community.

Life is certainly the work of God, but legitimate authority, as s. Paolo and with him St. Thomas (cf. IIª-IIae q. 104 a. 6), is constituted by God and, by the will of God, must imitate God according to the requirements of his own state (cf. IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 4), also judging and condemning to death.

Blazquez fixes himself on the physical life of the individual man and loses sight of everything else, loses sight of the whole of Christian doctrine which instead s. Thomas presents with great consistency, as we well know.

Moreover, St. Thomas, in dealing with the death penalty and in considering it lawful, does not simply follow Aristotle, contrary to what Fr. Blazquez, but follows Scripture and Tradition, which in fact deem the death penalty lawful and follows the Holy Spirit who also spoke through Aristotle, according to the well-known Thomist expression: "omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est"[351] Everything true, by whoever it is said, comes from the Holy Spirit ... I emphasize that St. Thomas in dealing with the death penalty follows the Tradition precisely: Fathers, Doctors, Popes ... and the Magisterium of the Church ... Tradition that Blazquez shows to put aside ... therefore it is not s. Thomas outside the evangelical line but rather Blazquez.

Blazquez's statements are a mass of errors, inaccuracies and very serious inconsistencies ... God intervene and free us from these aberrations! The light of Christ dispels the darkness of errors.

e) Some reflections on some of L. Eusebi's statements about the death penalty.

God enlighten us better and better.

Among the authors who prepared the Pope's erroneous statements on the inadmissibility of the death penalty there is, in particular, prof. Luciano Eusebi according to which the passages, in favor of the lawfulness of the death penalty, of the typical edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church carried out at the time of John Paul II presented an approach that: "... essentially utilitarian, without any reference - in a Catechism - of a theological-moral character (as however continues to happen with regard to n. 2266, which concerns criminal sanctions in general) "[352] Already these statements of Eusebi appear frankly strange not to say absurd because those passages of the Catechism are inserted in the treatment of the V commandment, therefore they refer to the Bible and also speak of Tradition ... therefore these statements refer to the teaching of the Bible and Tradition. As we have seen above, the Bible interpreted by Tradition has always legitimized the death penalty and the Magisterium has clearly reaffirmed it! Not happy to have read only these that appear to be true theological absurdities of prof. Eusebi I decided to reflect on his book “The Church and the problem of punishment. On the answer to the negative as a juridical and theological challenge. " (Ed. La Scuola, 2014) to further examine his statements. As we will see, it is interesting to examine what Eusebi says also to see certain theological drifts of our times and to reaffirm before them the sound Catholic doctrine on various important issues that are "behind" the question of the death penalty.

Let's say first of all that Eusebi fails to make a seriously structured theological discourse with the Bible, the Fathers, the Doctors, the Magisterium ... obviously if he had done so he would have realized, if he had wanted, that the faith of the Church says much more than what he says. The faith of the Church speaks of just divine retribution, speaks of just punishment and just punishment, speaks of God's justice including in it the just condemnation and just reward that God gives to each according to his works, speaks of hell as just punishment for sins etc. In this secure and traditional doctrinal line, which is precisely the faith of the Church, we also mean precisely the lawfulness, in some cases, of the death penalty, which the Church has practically always accepted within certain limits, as we have seen.

As we have seen above, with regard to the death penalty it is necessary to keep in mind some fundamental data:

1) the Bible shows that it accepts this penalty both in the Old Testament and in the New;

2) the Fathers are practically unanimous in accepting this penalty;

3) the Magisterium, precisely on the basis of biblical and patristic indications, has always considered lawful, in some cases, the death penalty and in some cases has included the recognition of such lawfulness in professions of faith required to remain in Catholic Orthodoxy;

4) the lawfulness of the death penalty is a truth that also belongs to natural law, accepted practically everywhere and always.

These data lead us to understand that affirming the absolute inadmissibility of the death penalty goes against Catholic doctrine and against natural law, therefore in various cases the Holy See, over the course of 2000 years, has condemned people who denied the lawfulness of the sentence. of death and imposed on those who wanted to be part of the Church a profession of faith that included the truth that the death penalty is lawful.

Faced with this very solid affirmation of the lawfulness of the death penalty through the Bible and Tradition as well as through the Magisterium and through the natural law, prof. Eusebi develops an inconsistent opposition based on:

1) confusion at the level of the practice of sound theology;

2) errors regarding the biblical statements and their correct interpretation in Tradition regarding the death penalty;

3) attack on the fundamental truths of faith that underlie the Catholic doctrine on the death penalty.

In the next paragraph we will examine points 1 and 2 of the list just presented, in the following paragraphs we will examine point 3.

and, 1) Eusebi's errors regarding biblical, patristic and magisterial affirmations on the lawfulness of the death penalty.

With regard to point 1 and point 2 it should be noted that Eusebi, as already said, does not develop a solid and precise theological treatment based on the Bible interpreted through Tradition and with the help of the Magisterium, the author cites many theologians, including Protestants but not fixes with precision the fundamental data for a sound and sure theology. The impression I get from Eusebi's writing is that this author first got his negative idea about the death penalty and then looked for theologians who supported it ... Beyond my impressions, however, the text appears theologically disordered, inconsistent and deviant from sound doctrine.

Eusebi does not develop a solid treatment of biblical statements about the death penalty interpreted in the light of Tradition; I would also point out, in this regard, that, as we saw above, even the Jewish tradition based on the Old Testament clearly affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty.

Eusebi affirms that the death penalty does not go back to the apostolic tradition (p. 128) as we saw above, things are not at all like this: the New Testament and its Author fully accept the lawfulness of the death penalty already affirmed in the OT by the same. Author and confirmed by him in the Tradition. I refer in particular to what I said above about the affirmation of the lawfulness of the death penalty in the New and Old Testaments.

As we have seen, E. Christian Brugger, while in favor of the inadmissibility of the death penalty, states: "The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be hardly any doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by New Testament authors. "[353] The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be no doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by the authors of the New Testament ... and above all by the Author of the New Testament who had already said it in the Old Testament. and he continued to say it through Tradition.

The image we invariably receive when the New Testament recounts meetings with civil authorities where death is at stake is that of a normal judicial practice, which is questioned only when it is thought to be unfairly exercised.[354].

Cardinal Dulles states: "No passage from the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty."[355]

The New Testament does not condemn the death penalty but rather takes it for granted and indeed in some of its passages it legitimizes it; the New Testament therefore fully accepts what the Old Testament basically affirms in this regard, namely that the death penalty is fully legitimate, in some cases.

And it is precisely on the basis of the New and Old Testament that the Fathers of the Church, as we have seen above, practically unanimously admit the death penalty.

Brugger also writes: “For the Fathers of the early Church, the authority of the state to kill malefactors is taken for granted. Opinions differed on whether Christians should hold offices whose responsibilities include the judging and carrying out of capital punishments — pre-Constantinian authors said they should not, those writing after ad 313 said they should — but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned. "[356]

For the early Church Fathers, the authority of the state to kill evildoers is taken for granted. Opinions diverged as to whether Christians were to hold offices whose responsibilities included the judgment and carrying out of the death penalty, in fact the pre-Constantinian authors said they shouldn't, those who wrote after the 313 edict said they should; but the principled legitimacy of capital punishment itself is never questioned.

In the wake of biblical and patristic affirmations, the Magisterium, as we have seen above, for 2000 years has constantly affirmed, together with the Doctors, the lawfulness of the death penalty and has also declared it at a very high level of doctrinal commitment.

We have also seen how the affirmations of the Popes on the subject of the lawfulness of the death penalty are already many before 1200 and indicate that for them it was very clear that the Bible gave the authorities the power to impose the death penalty.

Faced with these truths, Eusebi's errors are evident in pages 128 ff of his book where he speaks precisely of the NT, the Fathers and the Magisterium regarding the question of the death penalty and in which Eusebi shows that he accepts some statements of N. Blazquez.

and, 2) Eusebi wants to remove the retributive dimension of sound doctrine.

God enlighten us better and better.

In his book on p. 7-52 Eusebi shows that he wants to put aside in the theological field what he defines as a retributive model and according to which: doing justice means applying to those who sin penalties that reproduce the negativity of their actions (p. 7)

Eusebi concretely implements with regard to various biblical passages the cancellation of the retributive dimension that they naturally contain.

e, 2,1) Fundamental response of the Bible and of Tradition to the affirmations of Eusebi.

The Cross of Christ be our light.

Let us say first of all that the reality of God is "infinitely above all that we can understand or say: he is the" hidden God "(Is 45,15:206), his name is ineffable" (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 11) ) Divine justice is infinitely super justice whose characteristics emerge from the Bible and from Tradition. The P. Bonino affirmed "" Righteous [çaddîq] is the Lord, he loves right things [çedâqâh] "(Ps 7: 97). "The Lord reigns, [...] justice [çèdèq] and law [mishepât] are the basis of his throne" (Ps 96 [2], XNUMX). The Bible presents justice to us as one of the principal "qualities" of God. However, in sacred Scripture, "justice" is an original and complex notion that does not exactly coincide with the common philosophical concept of justice "[357] According to the famous French professor: “When attributed to God, biblical justice means that God acts according to his own promises, to his own covenant. In this sense, God's justice means God's fidelity to his own plan of salvation and, all in all, justice is equivalent to merciful love ... The notion of God's saving justice is certainly central to the New Testament, especially since St. Paul." (ST Bonino “Love…” p. 34s) On the other hand: “… the approach of God's justice as salvific justice does not erase in the Bible the perhaps most common and widespread idea of ​​God's justice as retributive justice. God is the "just Judge who tests the heart and the mind" (Jer 11, 20), who makes no distinction between people, but gives to each according to his works. St Paul, while insisting on the gratuitousness of salvation, nevertheless writes: «I fought the good fight […]. Now I have only the crown of justice that the Lord, the just judge, will deliver to me on that day "(2 Tm 4: 7-8)." (ST Bonino "Love ..." p. 36)

The Bible clearly speaks of God's retributive justice[358]

Tradition precisely in line with the Bible reaffirms this retributive justice with extreme clarity, as we shall see.

Our God is good and just says the Tradition clearly[359]

Innumerable are the texts that can be found in the Tradition and which affirm precisely that God rewards men for their actions by rewarding or punishing them.[360]

Divine judgment is combined with the retribution that God gives for the works of men.

Origen[361], s. John Chrysostom [362] they offer important texts that indicate the retributive justice of God. Says s. Augustine that divine justice does not cease to be exercised in this world but does not always appear clear, there will be a future judgment in which God will manifest all his supreme wisdom in front of all and will render each one what is due him, to the good he will render eternal goods , to the wicked he will render eternal evils: "Et bonis bona, et malis mala, sine fine mansura"[363] Other significant statements of s can be found. Augustine in this line[364] God judges, God rewards and condemns… based on our works.

God will also judge us through ourselves.[365] I specify that the supreme judge will always be God; and in him, in the truth of him, never against it, we will judge and condemn ourselves, as St. Gregorio Nazianzeno.

God, Supreme Judge, who is Truth, will make us see our works and will make us judge, in Him and with Him, our life ...

In the Council of Lyon the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus was read, according to which whoever dies in the grace of God receives the reward of eternal life while whoever dies in grave sin is damned[366] , this same doctrine was dogmatically defined by Pope Benedict XII in the constitution "Benedictus Deus"[367]

Paul VI affirmed: "It is divinely revealed doctrine that sins involve penalties inflicted by the holiness and justice of God, to be paid for both in this land, with the pains, miseries and calamities of this life and especially with death, and in the beyond even with fire and torments or with purifying pains. … Which penalties are imposed according to justice and mercy by God for the purification of souls, for the defense of the sanctity of the moral order and to restore the glory of God in his full majesty. "[368]

Paul VI also affirmed something significant about the punishment for original sin[369]

Veritatis Splendor affirms very significant things in this line (VS n. 73 and 93)… God is just and good judge who rewards good and punishes evil. The eternal reward is bestowed on us by God.

As already said, many other texts of the Tradition which affirm that God rewards or punishes and which therefore affirm divine distributive justice I will put some of them in the following pages and in the next paragraphs.

e, 2,1,1) Theological study in line with the Thomist doctrine on retributive justice in God.

The Cross of Christ be our light.

Wanting to respond more deeply to the affirmations of Professor Eusebi regarding distributive justice in God, it seems useful to me to make a broad discourse which I present below and which leads us first of all to see in particular what he teaches in this regard s. Thomas Aquinas.

Speaking of justice, the Angelic Doctor distinguishes two kinds of justice, namely the commutative and the distributive one (cf. IIª-IIae q. 61 a. 1 co). Distributive justice, as Aristotle says, "... serves to direct distributions ..." (Ethica, V book, quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum Theological IIª-IIae q. 61 a. 1) it, more precisely, has the task of distributing common things according to proportionality (cf. IIª-IIae q. 61 a. 1 co) ... according to its norm, whoever governs or administers gives to each according to his or her dignity (cf. Iª q. 21 a. 1 co) )

Commutative justice, which consists of those things that are mutually accomplished between two persons, is not found in God, instead distributive justice is found in Him who gives everyone what is proper to them according to the dignity of each of the existing beings, and which preserves the nature of every being in its own order and value (cfr. Dionigi Aeropagita, “The divine names” c. VIII, quoted in St. Thomas Aquinas, I, q. 21 a. 1); distributive justice is, therefore, in God who

God's distributive justice is also retributive justice because He distributes some goods by paying, according to justice, for the merits of creatures.

St. Thomas clearly speaks, in this line, of retributive justice in God in particular in two texts ("Super Isaiam", chap. 62; "Super Psalmo" 17, n. 14)

In the Sum Theological s. Thomas affirms that justice in God in some cases is called convenience (condecentia) of his goodness, and in other cases retribution for merits (cf. Iª q. 21 a. 1 ad 3). The same s. Doctor further states in various passages that God retributes [370] In the Sum against the Gentiles s. Thomas in various articles deals with the rewards and punishments that God inflicts on men ("Sum against the Gentiles" book III cc. 140-145)

There is talk of merit and demerit in relation to the retribution that is made to a man according to justice, because he has acted for the benefit or to the detriment of someone; human acts are a merit or a demerit before God (cf. I-II q. 21 a.4) and therefore God rightly rewards or punishes those who perform them.

In this line s. Thomas affirms that: "... It is up to him who takes care of individual men to give the prize for virtue and penalties for sin ..."[371]

Furthermore, St. Thomas, speaking of punishment, affirms that all that is contained under a certain order forms as one thing in relation to the principle of it. From this it follows that everything that arises against the order is repressed by the order itself, or by whoever is at the head of it. Sin is a disordered act, therefore whoever sins acts against a certain order, it follows that from the order itself this act is repressed. The punishment is precisely this repression of the one who carries out this disordered act (cf. I-II q. 87 a.1).

This repression, it should be noted, takes place ab aeterno, because God is eternal (cf. I q. 10 a. 2) and immutable (cf. I q. 9 a. 1), therefore God, unlike the earthly judge, does not it changes, it does not change when it inflicts the sentence (cf. Iª q. 21 a. 1 ad 3), this sentence is decreed, indeed “super decreed” from eternity!

Just as creation understood in an active sense does not imply change in God and signifies divine action, that is, the divine essence with the relationship to the creature (cf. Iª q. 45 a. 3 ad 1), so does the work of justice that God accomplishes giving creatures what is right on the basis of their works is equally the divine super action, that is the divine super essence, immutable and eternal, with the relation to the creature.

Continues s. Thomas saying that according to the three orders to which the human will is subjected, a man can be punished with a triple penalty. First of all, in fact, the human person is subjected to the order of his own reason; secondly, he is subjected to the order of man who governs men from the outside, both in the spiritual and in the temporal sphere, both in the political and in the economic sphere; thirdly, he is subject to the universal order of divine government.

Because of sin, each of these orders is perverted: whoever sins acts against reason, against human law, and against divine law, therefore there are three penalties he incurs: the first, which is imposed on him by himself, and it is the remorse of conscience; the second that is infused on him by men; the third which is given to him by God (cf. I-II q. 87 a.1).

Moreover, even in the punishment that man inflicts on himself and that other men inflict on him we must also see the action of God; in fact, as s. Thomas, God works in every worker (cf. I q. 105 a. 5); in a particular way, then, God acts through those whom He has placed at the head of the communities. In this line, as we saw above, in the commentary on the letter to the Romans chap. 13 s. Thomas states that the princes carry the sword symbol of the punitive power of authority, which also includes the power to kill, and in this is manifested their being ministers of God who inflict punishment to execute God's righteous judgment on those who sin . Through these principles, which justly punish the guilty, God works in a particular way. Thomas in this line, not only is it lawful but it is meritorious to act with zeal to execute the just judgment of God on those who sin (cfr. Super Rom., Chap. 13 l. 1). St. Thomas, who clearly affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty, obviously includes capital punishment in the punishments that princes can inflict, and of which he has just spoken to us.

The principles, that is the authorities, insofar as they use their power according to justice are therefore instruments of God and in their work God acts in a particular way, in their imposing the death penalty according to justice it is God who works through them.

On the other hand, as st. Thomas in 49st q. 2 a. Reply to Objection 2: The effect of the defective second cause is brought back to the unfailing first cause for what it has of entity and perfection but not for what it has defect: everything that is of entity and activity in evil action is brought back to God as his cause, but what is deficient in it is not caused by God, but by the second cause which is defective.

In this line, in the action of the prince who unjustly imposes the death penalty, against divine will, it is necessary to distinguish:

1) what there is of entity, which precisely leads back to God as his cause;

2) what is lacking and sinful, which is precisely caused not by God, but by the sin of the prince.

The penalty is proportionate to the sin, explains St. Thomas, and in sin two things must be considered: the first is, in the case of mortal sin, the departure from the immutable good, which is infinite, and for this aspect sin is infinite; the second is the disordered conversion to the changing good and on this side sin is limited; therefore, on the part of the estrangement from God, an infinite penalty corresponds to sin, which is called the penalty of damage, and is the loss of the infinite good, that is, of God. punishment of meaning (cf. I-II q. 87 a.4).

The punishment is commensurate with the guilt as for the harshness, both in the divine and in the human judgment, explains s. Thomas (cf. Iª-IIae q. 87 a. 3)

God punishes and rewards in this life and in the next, after death, contrary to what Eusebi says [372].

St. Thomas specifies (I-II q. 87 a. 8 in c.), That some of the penalties for sin concern only those who commit it, others extend to other people.

To summarize: in God there is retributive justice therefore He has fixed from eternity, together with the rewards for the just, the penalties for sin; God causes such penalties as a judge of man while man causes them with his sin. Such penalties can also extend, in a certain way, to other persons who are not directly the perpetrators of such sins

God enlighten us better and better.

e, 2,1,2) Clarifications regarding Christ who judges and condemns.

I do not see the theme of Christ the Judge treated by Eusebi ... nor is the exegesis of the famous Gospel sentence said by Christ always deepened in the classic line: "Get away from me, cursed ones, into eternal fire!" (Mt 25,41) but this is understood, in fact, all this affirms precisely that Christ is judge and condemnation and this goes directly against the affirmations of Eusebi ...

Many biblical texts, by Fathers, by great saints and by Doctors, profound texts of the s. Magisterium affirm that God and therefore Christ judges and condemns; in order not to remain vague, below he will present in a more precise way some texts than those I have just indicated.

The Bible clearly states the judgment of Christ (Cf. Jn 5,22.27; Mt 25,31; Ac 10,42; 17,31; 2 Tm 4,1)

The Apostles' Creed clearly states that Christ: "sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty: from there he will come to judge the living and the dead."

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed states: "And again he will come, in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and his reign will have no end."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 679: “Christ is Lord of eternal life. The full right to definitively judge the works and hearts of men belongs to him as the Redeemer of the world. " In this line, see also the same Catechism in n. 682. Christ, therefore, will reward or punish….

The Roman Catechism affirms: "For the sake of clarity, the parish priests will distinguish clearly the two eras, in which each must appear before the Lord to give an account of each individual's thoughts, works, words, and then hear the immediate sentence of the judge. "[373]… Then Christ will reward or punish….

St. Thomas clearly explains that God rewards and condemns (St. Thomas Aquinas, "Sum Against the Gentiles", Ed. UTET, First edition eBook: March 2013, l. III. Chap. CXL)

St. Thomas also affirms that: “… the judicial power is a prerogative common to the whole Trinity: which is true. However, by appropriation it is attributed to the Son ... "[374] … Then Christ will reward or punish…. The Angelic Doctor reaffirms this doctrine in his other writings[375] Christ is, absolutely, the Judge, He who is true God and true man.

The words of s. Thomas help us to fully understand what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says when it states: "... Now, the Son did not come to judge ... It is for the refusal of grace in the present life that everyone already judges himself for himself, (cf. Jn 3,18; 12,48.) Receives according to his works (Cf 1 Cor 3,12-15) and can also condemn himself for eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love. (Cf Mt 12,32; Heb 6,4-6; 10,26-31) "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 679) Christ is, absolutely, the Judge, the first part of n. 679 and n. 682, which affirms that the full right to judge definitively the works and hearts of men belongs to Christ, help us to interpret precisely the second part of n. 679 cited above. Christ is Savior but also Judge and He will judge: He will reward and condemn. The judgment will be based on our actions and in this sense the Catechism says that everyone judges for himself. More precisely: it is not that we really and absolutely judge ourselves by ourselves but, as mentioned, with our behavior we determine the judgment of Christ. God is the Judge especially when the judgment results in an eternal reality of bliss or suffering. The Catechism at n. 679 must clearly say that each one receives according to his works (cf 1 Cor 3,12: 15-682), that is, he receives the reward or punishment that Christ inflicts: "Christ glorious, coming at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, he will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and give back to each man according to his works and according to the acceptance or rejection of grace. "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. XNUMX)

In a note, the Catechism reports a text from chap. 3 of the Gospel of John; commenting on this passage s. Thomas affirms that in the first advent Jesus came for a judgment of discernment and not for a judgment of condemnation but in the second advent he will come for a judgment of condemnation (Super Io., Chap. 3 l. 3)

In the note to n. 679 the Catechism also reports a text of chap. 12 of the Gospel of John, s. Thomas comments brightly on this text in this way: Christ will judge and condemn, he is the Truth who judges and also allows souls to judge themselves righteously about their works ... (Superego, chap. 12 l. 8) and the Church , of which Christ is the Head, will be united with Him in judgment and condemnation. Therefore the Judge is always Christ and it is never us. We welcome the Truth and therefore the sentence that Christ establishes and in this sense we can judge ourselves in a certain way but the Supreme Judge is He, it is His Judgment that is valid because He alone knows everything and is Justice. It is therefore not we who judge ourselves but He, his sovereign Truth judges in a supremely just and perfect way, insofar as we welcome it, we too can judge ourselves in him and with him, never against him, because he is the supreme judge.

Such a supreme judgment concerning eternity cannot simply compete with us, only God can judge with full truth, it cannot simply be man who judges himself, because man does not know himself fully according to truth, only God knows perfectly and can make a perfect judgment, the same for everyone! Making man the perfect and true judge of himself, excluding the supreme Judge who is God, is an absurd deification and divinization of nothingness and human ignorance ... It is not we who judge ourselves but He, his sovereign Truth judges in a supreme way right and perfect; insofar as we welcome it, we too can judge ourselves in him and with him, never against him, because he is the supreme judge.

To say that it is simply us who judge ourselves means to make the final judgment ridiculous because we know well that: no one is a good judge in his own case ... While in the world the principle that no one is a good judge in his own case applies, and therefore in trials the judge is different by the accused, precisely the most important judgment, that is the final judgment, would be made by whoever is the worst judge for his own cause, that is, by the accused himself: which is absurd and ridiculous!

The Roman Catechism affirms, in this line: "Then, addressing those who will be on his left, he will strike his justice against them with these words: Away from me, cursed ones, to the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ( Mt 25,41). … This is called by the theologians penalty of damage

Then follow the words: "to the eternal fire"; it is the second kind of punishment that theologians call sense punishment, because it is perceived with the senses of the body ... Our Lord and Savior will rightly issue this sentence against the wicked ... "[376] Christ, supreme Judge, is the One who inflicts the penalty of damage and that of meaning.

The words of the Gospel quoted in this passage from the Roman Catechism are illuminating and St. Alphonsus, taking them back, affirms: "The soul that comes out of this life in God's disgrace, before the judge condemns it, she will condemn herself, and then she will hear the terrible sentence intimated by Jesus-Christ ..."[377] The condemnation that the soul makes of itself is the carrying out of the condemnation of the Supreme Judge!

Adds the s. Neapolitan doctor: “What will the sinner do, what will the sinner answer to Jesus-Christ as judge? ... Here finally the judge will give the sentence. "Discede to me, maledicte, in ignem aeternum". (Matth., 25, 41: "Discede to me, maledicte, in ignem aeternum".) "[378] Christ is judge ... and judges and condemns ... and the Church is united with him.

Hell, note it well, implies a sentence of eternal eternal punishment. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read, in this line, at n. 1034: "Jesus repeatedly speaks of" gehenna ", of the" inextinguishable fire ", (cf. Mt 5,22.29; 13,42.50; Mk 9,43-48.) ... Jesus announces ... and he will pronounce the sentence:" Far away from me, cursed, in the eternal fire! "(Mt 25,41). " I underline: he, that is Christ, will pronounce the sentence: «Go away from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire! "(Mt 25,4). Then Christ will judge and condemn to eternal damnation those who have deserved it!

Eusebi speaks of Aristotelian retaliation (p. 47) ... but does not refer to the biblical retaliation: "... the sacred text says:" So that they would understand that with those same things for which one sins, with them he is then punished "(" per quae peccavit, per haec et torquetur ", Wis 11,16:XNUMX).

The theme of the retaliation is taken up several times in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore those who lived unjustly with folly you have tormented them with their own abominations" (Wis 12,23 and also 16,1 and 18,4). "[379] See also, in this line, the affirmations of the Apocalypse, chap. 18. The penalty of retaliation is well rooted in the Truth that God has given us and the weak and deviant statements of Eusebi cannot erase it!

e, 2,2) Eusebi wants to remove the retributive dimension from the consequences of Adam's sin.

Eusebi speaks of original sin and practically removes the retributive dimension to the consequences of Adam's sin, in particular he tries to cancel the truth for which God punished humanity because of original sin[380] In the face of Eusebi's affirmations, the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms with regard to original sin, basing itself in particular on the texts of the highest magisterial level of the Council of Trent, that it is a primordial event, which occurred at the beginning of history and which marks the whole of history: “Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that all human history is marked by the original sin freely committed by our forefathers.[381]"(Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 390)

Pope Benedict said several important things, underlining the historical dimension of this sin[382]

Benedict XVI also affirmed: "" The mystery of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which we solemnly celebrate today, reminds us of two fundamental truths of our faith: first of all original sin, and then the victory over it of the grace of Christ, a victory that shines in a sublime way in Mary Most Holy. "[383] ... original sin is a fundamental truth of our faith!

The Church guards the dogma of original sin: "... if, in the faith of the Church, the awareness of the dogma of original sin has matured, it is because it is inseparably connected with the other dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ."[384] ... Original sin is a dogma ...

As said: Eusebi practically removes the retributive dimension from the consequences of Adam's sin… We will see below how the retributive dimension of the consequences of sin is very clearly attested by the Bible and by the Tradition that interprets the Bible.

e, 2,2,1) Biblical and magisterial response to Eusebi's affirmations

The biblical text of reference, indicating the operation of retributive justice on our progenitors after sin is Genesis 3,16-19 The retributive dimension inherent in this text is evident. The famous biblical scholar Spadafora in his Biblical Dictionary says, speaking of death, that it is: “Consequence and pain of sin (see Adam): Gen. 2, 27; 3, 3. " [385]

Before him, Fr. M. Sales: "Sin is therefore the cause of death, and death is the punishment of sin (Gen. II, 17; III, 19; Sap. I, 13, etc.)." [386] The "New Great Biblical Commentary" on p. 15[387] For original sin God imposed various penalties on man, including the penalty of death.

God enlighten us better and better.

In the II Synod of Orange we find important affirmations on divine justice in act after original sin[388]  for us this means in particular that death is the penalty for original sin and that together with death there is, equally as a penalty for sin, the deterioration of human nature, it also means that the penalty for the sin of Adam and Eve it affected not only them but also all the offspring. The same truths are proclaimed by the Council of Trent: "Whoever does not admit that the first man Adam, having transgressed God's command in heaven, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he was created and who incurred for this sin of prevarication in the anger and indignation of God, and, therefore, in the death, which God had first threatened him, and, with death, in the slavery of the one who, later on, had the power of death and that is the devil (21) ', and that Adam for that sin of prevarication was made worse in soul and body: let him be anathema. " [389]

In the profession of faith of St. Paul VI reads in this line: “We believe that in Adam all have sinned; which means that the original guilt he committed has caused human nature, common to all men, to fall into a state in which it bears the consequences of that guilt, and which is no longer the state in which it was at the beginning in our ancestors, constituted in holiness and justice, in which man knew neither evil nor death. It is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it, wounded in its own natural forces and subjected to the dominion of death, that it is transmitted to all men; and it is in this sense that each man is born in sin. "[390] Note that this is a profession of faith, so it has a high doctrinal importance! The consequences of the text just seen are penalties, in fact as seen: "... it is divinely revealed doctrine that sins involve penalties inflicted by the holiness and justice of God." (Paul VI "Indulgentiarum Doctrina").

St. John Paul II made various statements in the line we are seeing[391] The sin of Adam was, therefore, punished and the penalties imposed for the sin of the first parents spread to all the descendants. Origen states in this regard: "... man, through the punishment of sin, had come from the paradise of freedom to the slavery of this world."[392]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in nos. 399 s. lists all the dramatic consequences of original sin, including death and suffering. In this line, the Catechism also specifies what are the penalties for sin: the eternal penalty and the temporal penalty (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1472s).

Death and all kinds of trials are the temporal penalties for original sin.

Benedict XVI stated: "... God ... did not create death, but it entered the world out of envy of the devil who, rebelling against God, also lured men into deception, leading them to rebellion (cf. Wisdom 1, 13-14; 2, 23-24). " [393]

In summary: God repays evil with just punishment, with it God first struck our parents and struck us too, their descendants, for original sin; all this obviously means, as we will see even better in the following pages, that there is retributive justice in God.

In the case of early human sin, which is the subject of Eusebi's claims to which we are responding, based on the claims of s. Thomas seen above (cf. I-II q. 87 a.1), we must say that the penalties caused by this sin are two: a penalty imposed on them by themselves, and it is the remorse of conscience and a penalty that is inflicted on them by God.

In the just punishment that the first men inflict on themselves we must also see the action of God, as I said earlier in this paragraph; in fact, as s. Thomas, God works in every person (cf. I q. 105 a. 5).

With regard to the punishment imposed directly by God on the first men, it must be said that it is the repression of the one who carries out a disordered act, repression carried out by God (cf. I-II q. 87 a.1).

The condemnation that God "super decrees" from eternity, but which is fulfilled in history, also includes suffering and death for men as a punishment.

St. Thomas affirms in particular with regard to the death penalty “Homo ergo demerendo causa est mortis, sed Deus, ut iudex. Salary enim peccati mors, Rom. VI, 23. " (Super Heb. [Rep. Vulgate], chap. 9 l. 5) The man with his sin is the cause of death but God is the cause of death as he is judge and precisely imposes the penalty of death ab aeterno for sin.

So we must not imagine God as a character who, in the face of sin and reacting to it, inflicts, like a sadistic executioner, the punishment by raging on the person ... nor should we imagine him as a violent character who responds to his enemies, who hate him, raging on himself. They. God is immutable and from eternity he decreed in his Wisdom and Charity the just punishment of the wicked, from eternity he decreed the just punishment for sin. Adam and Eve, having sinned, were punished by God according to this decree and the "external" dimension of the imposition of the penalty, which Eusebi tries to cancel, is very evident in the Bible: God clearly condemns man and woman in chap. 3 of Genesis for their sin and eventually drives them out of the earthly Paradise; they are very clear actions indicating God's punishment affecting Adam and Eve. The following pages of the Bible further clarify the negative effects of such original sin.

What has been said so far helps us to understand what the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms when it says about temporal punishment and eternal punishment: "These two penalties must not be conceived as a kind of vengeance, which God inflicts from without, but as deriving from the very nature of sin. " (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1472)

God is not a sadistic executioner who takes revenge with hatred and who inflicts punishment by raging on the person.

As he explains s. Thomas: man with his sin is the cause of death, that is, man with sin causes the penalty of death, therefore the death penalty derives from the nature of sin, but on the other hand God is the cause of death in how much he is an immutable and most holy judge and in fact he imposed ab aeterno according to his justice the penalty of death for sin, that is, he fixed this penalty from eternity and therefore imposed it.

St. Thomas specifies (I-II q. 87 a. 8 in c.), That some of the penalties for sin concern only those who commit it, others extend to other people, in this line, some penalties of Adam's sin and Eve extend to all men, others, more directly caused by their personal sin, do not extend to all humanity.[394] In this way the punishment that strikes the progenitor falls on the descendants.

To summarize: in God there is retributive justice therefore He has fixed from eternity, together with the rewards for the just, the penalties for sin; God causes such penalties as a judge of man while man causes them with his sin. Such penalties can also extend, in a certain way, to other persons who are not directly the perpetrators of such sins; original sin, in this line, caused in a particular way pains not only for Adam and Eve but also for humanity.

e, 2,2,2) Clarifications on the "origin" of death.

With the evident intention of going so far as to say that God does not pay, and therefore does not punish, sin with death, Eusebi quotes in a note[395] an orthodox theologian who affirms that according to our Western authors death would be a phenomenon originating from God, a kind of creature of God, while the writers of the first two centuries and the Greek Fathers deny it.

I answer to prof. Eusebi and the theologian, first of all pointing out what I said a little above.

The famous biblical scholar Spadafora in his Biblical Dictionary says, speaking of death, that it is: "Consequence and pain of sin (see Adam)" ("Death" in Spadafora (directed by) "Biblical Dictionary" Studium 1963 2 vols. ( AM; MZ), before him Fr M. Sales had also said this (M. Sales "The Holy Bible commented by Fr M. Sales" Turin 1914, v. II, p. 41)

For original sin God imposed various penalties on man, including the penalty of death.

In the II Synod of Orange it was declared: that death is the penalty for original sin [396]

Something similar was declared in the Council of Trent [397]

In the profession of faith of St. Paul VI read in this line that human nature has fallen due to original sin: “… stripped of the grace that clothed it, wounded in its own natural strength and subjected to the dominion of death, which is transmitted to all men; and it is in this sense that each man is born in sin. "  [398] Affirmations along this line are also found in other texts by Popes[399]

Death and all kinds of trials are the temporal penalties for original sin.

Also I answer to prof. Eusebi and the Russian theologian with the words of St. Thomas therefore: the order of the universe also concerns the order of justice, which requires that the just punishment be inflicted on sinners. God who is Justice and the most perfect Order and is the architect of creation and its order, for this very reason he is the One who inflicts that evil which is punishment, therefore he is (Super) Author of the evil that is punishment, but not of that evil which is fault (cf. Iª q. 49 a. 2 co.).

God is "Super Life" and is "Super Justice", "Super Perfection" and evidently from eternity has decreed that the penalty for this original sin of man is also death; death is not properly created by God, creation implies that something is made from nothing, according to St. Thomas (I, q. 65, a. 3), creation is the production, operated by God, of a being according to all its substance, without presupposing any entity that is uncreated or created by some other reality.[400] Death is not really a creature, it is not a good but it is a lack of perfection, it is an evil, which God inflicts ab aeterno for sin.

Explain s. Thomas that God when he causes the order of the universe, which is a good, consequently and almost accidentally causes the corruption of things, according to the expression of the Scripture contained in I Kings 2 "The Lord kills and makes live", if On the other hand, the Bible affirms that "God did not make death" (Wis. 1), this must be interpreted in the sense that God did not want death directly (cf. Iª q. 49 a. 2 co.).

St. Thomas also affirms in this regard that man with his sin is the cause of death but God is the cause of death inasmuch as He is judge and precisely imposes ab aeterno the penalty of death for sin. (Super Heb., Ch. 9 l. 5)

In the Compendium Theologiae s. Thomas affirms that the penalty of original sin is also death and Christ wanted to suffer it, even though he did not sin, to save us. (Compendium theologiae, lib. 1 ch. 227 co.)

God is the (Super) Author of the evil that is punishment, but not of that evil that is guilt (cf. Iª q. 49 a. 2 co.).

God can take away what he has given, that is, perfection and therefore life, from those who are undeserving ... and Scripture and Tradition, which s. Thomas follows, they state it very clearly.

On the other hand also s. John Chrysostom in the homily XVII on Genesis affirms that in the words of Gen. 3,17ss we can see both the sentence of God as judge against man, and the punishments to which he subjects him (cf. S. Joannis Chrysostomi "Homiliae in Genesim" PG 53, 145. hom. XVII n. 9).

The cause of death is certainly man who has sinned but, on the other hand, God is also the cause of death because ab aeterno he condemned and punished the sin of Adam and Eve even with death.

St. Thomas, who knew the Fathers of the Church, including the Eastern ones, and remained well rooted in Tradition, took up their thought again, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and clarified it by noting that the cause of death is certainly the man who has sinned but, on the other hand, God is also the cause of death because ab aeterno he condemned and punished the sin of Adam and Eve with death.

e, 2,3) Eusebi wants to remove the retributive dimension from biblical punishments by relying on the "violence" attributed to God in the Bible.

Regarding Eusebi's claims about biblical punishments and violence attributed to God[401] First of all, it should be noted that Eusebi does not specify well what he means by violence.

Healthy theology affirms that God is infinite perfection and therefore he is not violent as by violence we mean something evil, brutal, contrary to justice; Violence, understood in this sense, is contrary to perfection, justice and divine charity (see "Violence" in the Encyclopedia on-line Treccani, www.treccani, http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/ricerca/ violence /; "Violent" in the Encyclopedia on-line Treccani, www.treccani http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/violento/)

God is absolute super perfection and punishes, remaining immutable, without doing violence in the sense said; the penalties that He inflicts are acts of justice and not of violence and even when he has to inflict very painful penalties or death, such infliction is never an act of violence; in a similar way, the authority that inflicts even very painful or even capital punishments on its subjects according to justice is not violent and the action of those who rightly defend themselves against an unjust aggressor and succeed in killing such unjust aggressor in accordance with justice .

The wicked are violent who commit crimes, it is not violent who, truly by divine mandate, acts and performs acts on men or peoples. If God commands something in Wisdom and in his Love he knows very well what he is doing, He is the Lord and He is Love; the real good is in doing what God wants.

Vatican Council I affirmed regarding our God: "The Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church believes and confesses that only one is the living and true God ... infinite for ... all perfection ..." (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius" there)

Pope Leo XIII specified: "God himself most provident, infinitely good and powerful .."[402] God is good and always does good works, God is perfect, he is not violent!

In particular for the interests of our study on the death penalty of criminals, it is evident that the death sentences of certain criminals declared and applied in the Bible according to the will of God are not violent in the sense just said and the sentence to damnation is not violent. for rebellious angels and sinners. More generally, the commands that come from God who is infinite justice and goodness are not violent but supremely just.

On the other hand, it must be taken into account that the Bible clearly shows how violence understood as something evil, brutal, contrary to justice enters the world of men with the sin of Adam and Eve and spreads to all humanity. It is we, sinners, the violent and the foolish so it is doubly absurd and foolish that any of us sinful men want to judge divine judgments.

God through Revelation helps man to oppose this violence, he already does it with the Old Testament, he does it even more with the New Testament.

The coming of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, brought to completion what God had already begun to do; with the coming of Christ, with the testimony of him, God led man to a more perfect realization of his will also with regard to the victory against violence.

The International Theological Commission affirmed: “For the overall theological deciphering of the theme of sacred violence in the biblical pages, theological reflection traditionally calls into question two criteria. On the one hand, the theological tradition underlines the pedagogical character of historical revelation, which must open its way in a context of harsh and tribal reception, very different from that which shapes our sensibility today. On the other hand, it highlights the historicity of the elaboration of faith attested in the biblical scriptures, highlighting the evidence of an evolutionary dynamic of the ways in which violence is represented and judged: in the perspective of its progressive overcoming, from the point of view of faith in the God of creation, of the covenant of salvation. "[403]

From the violence caused by sin God frees men with a pedagogy that is shown in Revelation, this pedagogy makes the faith of the people of God evolve so that they can always better overcome sin and with it violence.

Today we look at the Bible enlightened by the message of Christ, that is, we reread the to. Testament after 2000 years Christianity has taught us a high degree of charity, holiness and therefore victory over violence but we must not make the mistake of judging the Old Testament on the basis of Christian Revelation without considering the divine pedagogy that Bible highlights. The Gospel is part of the Bible and in the Bible God led man to the Gospel through a long pedagogy that began with the Old Testament. Without the Old Testament there would be no Gospel.

Through the coming of Christ, God has achieved a colossal refinement of religious teaching and moral theology, the coming of Christ has brought man back to the condition of initial perfection of humanity, in a certain way, and has reopened the gates of heaven. for man. Before the coming of Christ things were radically different and God spoke, in the Old Testament, to men who had not been visited by Christ and gave them holy teachings but in relation to their situation, their mentality, according to divine wisdom, which it is not ours. God spoke to men immersed in their time, with their culture and divine precepts were precisely suitable for them, who had not yet received the visit of Christ.

If we think of what other peoples did in the time of the A. Testament, if we think of the way in which they fought and treated the prisoners, if we think of the way in which they treated the children and women of the defeated peoples, we can better understand how God led his people to oppose violence.

To us what we read in the Old Testament may seem barbaric, violent but those times are not our times, the mentality was radically different and Christ had not come so that God's words were suitable for the men of those times.

If God gave those words and not others it was because that level of morality was really possible for those men and something more was not possible, sin weighed particularly heavily on humanity.

Sin had brutalized man from the beginning and precisely God in his justice and mercy spoke to men on whom sin was heavily burdened and who were capable, albeit with divine help, of what God commanded them.

God has always been infinitely just and holy, if he said certain things we read in the Bible, he said them from the height of his perfection and wisdom that we cannot reach!

Read the A. Testament must not serve to negatively judge divine commands from the top of our present morality; to judge the divine works negatively is foolish, of course!

If we have arrived at the morality that we accept today, we must thank God who in his wisdom for thousands of years has been carrying out a wonderful dialogue, attested by the whole Bible, with man with wise pedagogy! On the other hand, we must realize that even after Christ morality has a development and a perfecting; we have not arrived at the absolute perfection of morality.

We must also realize that even today, after the coming of Christ, many very serious sins and acts of violence are committed, just think of the 50 million abortions that are carried out every year ... this makes us understand how much man is brutalized by sin and how much wickedness man can carry out even after the coming of Christ, let alone what man could and did before Christ!

What I have just said solves the root problems that can arise when we read the Old Testament.

I emphasize for our purposes that the coming of the Lord and the victory over sin and violence that He has brought does not imply the cancellation of the death penalty.

The death penalty justly imposed according to the divine will was not and is not violence but the implementation of true justice.

Christ did not condemn the death penalty, the death penalty was considered perfectly lawful during 2000 years of Christianity, it is not a violent but a just act. Violent is the crime committed, not the right act with which this crime is punished. Great saints, great thaumaturges, great Doctors of the Church, who had the Holy Spirit, clearly considered the death penalty to be lawful in some cases; the death penalty rightly inflicted according to God's will is not an act of violence, when we speak of violence in the Bible we must exclude the passages in which the death penalty is justly implemented.

Eusebi precisely speaking of violence in the Bible comments on the affirmations of the Old Testament (among which there are those about the lawfulness of the death penalty) saying that in it "attitudes of violence are attributed to God" (Eusebi p.27) while "God it is absolutely non-violent ”(Eusebi p.28) and adding that Jesus“ suffers the consequences of that traditional vision ”(Eusebi p.29). Eusebi's purpose is obviously to:

1) to de-legitimize the retributive dimension inherent in the Bible and therefore in Tradition and therefore also de-legitimize what the Old Testament says about the death penalty;

2) to affirm, practically, that the New Testament exceeds this retributive dimension and therefore that it has declared this penalty illegal; we have seen that for Eusebi the death penalty does not belong to the apostolic Tradition.

However, Eusebi's plan collapses miserably: the retributive dimension clearly inherent in the Bible is clearly reaffirmed by Tradition, as seen above, and the New Testament fundamentally confirms it. The New Testament clearly admits, in this line, the lawfulness of the death penalty, for this reason, as we have widely seen, on the basis of Revelation and in particular of the New Testament, Popes and Bishops, great saints, great thaumaturges, great Doctors of the Church, men full of the Holy Spirit, clearly considered the death penalty to be lawful in some cases.

God enlighten us better and better.

e, 2,4) Eusebi wants to remove the retributive dimension inherent in the Passion of Christ and in our life.

In response to the affirmations of Eusebi who wants to cancel the retributive dimension of the Passion of Christ (pp. 34 ff) we must specify, as also says s. Thomas (cf. Compendium theologiae, lib. 1 chap. 227 co.), Who: Christ saved us with crucified charity, made reparation for our sins with charity that burdened itself with suffering and death for our sins, he is the Redeemer, the one who redeemed us and freed us from the slavery of sin.

This Redemption was announced already after the original sin[404]

This same Redemption was also announced through the prophets (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 64)

Universal redemption as a ransom that frees men from the slavery of sin (cf. Is 53,11-12; Jn 8,34: 36-53,11) through the killing of the Lamb of God, the Just Servant (cf. Is 3,14 ; Acts 20,28:53,7) had been announced in advance in the Scriptures as a divine plan of salvation; Jesus therefore presented the meaning of his life and death in this line (cf. Mt 8), the redemptive death of Jesus fulfills the prophecies (cf. Is 8,32-35; Acts 601-9,22) (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church n. XNUMX) Jesus also said other very significant things in this line (cf. Luke XNUMXff)

The Sixth Synod of Toledo affirmed: we have been purified by death and by the Blood of Christ.[405]

The Synod of Toledo itself and then the Council of Trent said other very significant things in this line [406]

All this essentially means that Christ has redeemed us through his Cross.

Leo XIII, after recalling the sacrifice that Christ offered nailed to the Cross, affirms: “That was a completely perfect and absolute atonement for men: and it is not another at all, but it is the same, that contained in the Eucharistic sacrifice. ... the effectiveness of this sacrifice, both to obtain and to atone, derives totally from the death of Christ ... "[407]

Christ is the Redeemer who with his Passion atoned for our sins and therefore redeemed us, that is, freed us, as mentioned above ... the Eucharist makes the Sacrifice of the Cross and its expiatory efficacy become perpetual.

In this regard, Pius XII affirmed that the third purpose of the Eucharist is: “… it is atonement and propitiation. Certainly no one outside of Christ could give Almighty God adequate satisfaction for the sins of mankind; He therefore wanted to sacrifice himself on the Cross "propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world". On the altars he offers himself equally every day for our redemption, so that, freed from eternal damnation, we are welcomed into the flock of the elect. "[408] Pius XII stated that the Savior made himself "... a victim of atonement for the sins of men."[409]

The same author in the same encyclical quoted the following passage from s. Thomas: “It should be noted that the liberation of man, through the passion of Christ, was suitable both for his mercy and for his righteousness. To justice first of all, because with his passion Christ satisfied for the guilt of the human race: and therefore for the justice of Christ man was freed. To mercy, then, since, since man was not able to satisfy all human nature for polluting sin, God gave him a reparator in the person of his Son. Now this was a gesture of more generous mercy on God's part than if He had forgiven sins without demanding any satisfaction. Therefore it is written: "God, rich in mercy, through the great love he bore us even though we died for our sins, called us back to life in Christ" "(III, q. 46, a. 1 ad 3)

The International Theological Commission wrote very significant things in this line[410]

He still said yes. Thomas: "... it must be said that Christ's passion is our ransom or redemption."[411]

Christ deserved, says St. Thomas, in a particular way with his Passion the salvation for all the members of his mystical Body. (III, q. 48, a. 1) St. Thomas wrote that Christ had to suffer on the Cross also to satisfy for the sin of the first men and that Christ's pains were greatest among the pains of this life because they were proportionate to the fruit that they had to produce (cf. III q. 46 a. 3) Christ, in order to atone for the sins of all men, assumed the greatest sadness, without exceeding the just limits (cf. III q. 46 a. 6).

In the same a. 6, in the answers from 4 to 6 s. Thomas explains that Christ also suffered for the sins of all and his pain exceeded that of any penitent because it derived from greater charity and wisdom, and because he suffered simultaneously for the sins of all ... moreover, the bodily life of Christ was very precious but Christ the he offered for the salvation of the world,[412] Christ also obviously offered the suffering of the loss of his bodily life for the salvation of souls and he also offered pain for the injustice suffered.[413]

Christ wanted to free man not only with his power but also with justice and therefore not only was he attentive to how great was the force that, from the divinity united to him, his pain had but he was also attentive to how great was the his pain according to his human nature for it to be enough to make such a great reparation.[414] ... the path of Christ was not only "love" ... it was crucified charity, it was atoning and reparative charity and Christ calls us to travel that same path ... of crucified, atoning and reparative charity (cf. Luke 9, 23ff).

I invite everyone, in this line, to read the enlightening statements of Pius IX on reparation collected in the "Miserentissimus Redemptor"[415] In it we can also read: “… for that admirable disposition of divine Wisdom according to which in our body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ must be done in favor of his body, which is the Church [Cf. Coloss., I, 24.], we can, indeed we must add to the praises and satisfactions "that Christ in the name of sinners bestowed on God", also our praises and satisfactions. But it is always advisable to remember that all the expiatory value depends solely on the bloody sacrifice of Christ, which is renewed, without interruption, on our altars in a bloodless way since "one is the same Victim, one is now the obliter through the ministry of priests, the same one who offered himself on the cross, only the manner of the oblation changed "[Conc. Trid., Sess. XXII, c. 2.]. For this reason, the immolation of ministers and other faithful must be combined with this august Eucharistic sacrifice, so that they too may offer themselves as "living victims, holy, pleasing to God" [Rom., XII, 1.] "

Pius XII said very effective things about Christ's victimhood and ours in him: “… Jesus is victim, but for us, taking the place of sinful man; now the Apostle's saying: "have the same sentiments in yourselves as they were in Christ Jesus" requires all Christians to… the voluntary and spontaneous exercise of penance, pain and atonement for their sins. In a word, it requires our mystical death on the Cross with Christ, in order to be able to say with Saint Paul: «I am in conflict with Christ on the Cross»… ”.[416]

All this essentially means that, in the light of the most holy divine retributive justice, Christ freed us from sin and punishment with his Cross, Christ redeemed us from sin and punishment with his Cross and therefore with his sufferings combined with his charity. , but it also means that we must participate in this mystery of the Cross, as Jesus himself said (cf. Luke 9,22ff).

In the "Miserentissimus Redemptor"[417]  in the act of reparation that concludes this encyclical it is written among other things: "And while we intend to atone for all the accumulation of so deplorable crimes, we propose to reparate each one in particular ..."

Christ does not only speak of following him in "love" ... but he calls us to follow him on the way of the Cross ... which is not only "love", it is charity and therefore also includes pain, suffering, humiliation, death ... reparation for sins, expiation! We must follow Christ in the just reparation of sins which also implies suffering for them ... in fact, among other things, the act of pain for sins implies pain for sins ...

St. Paul VI affirmed very significant things in this line[418]

As can be seen in these texts, the Second Vatican Council itself invites to penance ... and therefore to the atonement and reparation of sins.

As the Theological Commission said, “Christian penance is a participation in the life, suffering and death of Jesus Christ. And this takes place per fidem et caritatem et per fidei sacramenta [S. Thomas Aq., Summa Theol. III, 49, 3.6.]. Christian penance… must determine the entire life of the Christian (cf. Rom 6, 3 ff.).[419]

Our participation in the Passion takes place through faith and through the sacraments of faith (III, 49, aa. 3 and 5). In particular, the Eucharist transforms us into Christ so that we can participate in his Passion.

Adds s. Thomas: “To achieve the effects of Christ's passion, it is necessary, as we noted above, that we conform or configure ourselves to him. …. those who sin after baptism must conform to the suffering Christ, through the penalties and sufferings they have to endure. "[420]

True theology is not an extraordinary discovery of "easy" ways of a "love" that saves without the hard Cross, if there were such ways Christ would have taught us 2000 years ago and the saints, guided by the Holy Spirit, would have already traveled them ... true theology is acceptance of the true and only way by which we save ourselves, that is, the "narrow" way of true charity which passes through the Cross and which "few" find also because it is a way of holy spiritual and corporal mortification, it is a way of penance and of death and life, it is the way that our spiritual enemies (flesh, devil and world) do not want us to travel and do everything so that we do not follow it ...

Even the great Doctors and the great mystics have made it clear what I am stating in this paragraph[421], and obviously they are practically absent, with these texts, from the treatment of Eusebi ... Eusebi speaks of "love" but saving love is charity and true charity leads to wanting to repair sins by taking the Cross with Christ. True charity does not make people say phrases like: “all Christ has already suffered, there is no need for me to repair with him”… true charity is that of self. Paul who says: "Now I am happy in the sufferings that I endure for you and I give fulfillment to what, of the sufferings of Christ, is lacking in my flesh, in favor of his body which is the Church." (Col. 2,24:XNUMX f. )

The great saints, great mystics, like St. Catherine of Siena s. Paul of the Cross, s. John of the Cross lived Christ's words to the fullest: “« If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross every day and follow me. Whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for my sake will save it. "(Luke 9).

Christ saved and redeemed the world through his charity and his Cross and whoever wants to save himself and wants to help others save himself must immerse himself in true charity and therefore in the Cross of Christ. Sins are expiated with true charity, as Christ himself indicated. Whoever wants to follow him must do so on the way of the Cross, which is the way of true and therefore painful, humiliated, and often persecuted charity; true charity that repairs sins and converts sinners. The famous phrase: sanguis martyrum semen christianorum (the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians) wants us to understand precisely that the suffering charity of martyrs tears souls from sin, from unbelief and helps them to convert to Christianity. It is true charity that helps sinners to convert to Christ. The true and greatest theologians are not those who teach us to walk paths other than the Cross but are those who, in Christ, have walked and taught how to walk in the best way on the way of the Cross!

Christ, therefore, does not reject the traditional Catholic vision of sacrifice, but confirms it and the great saints confirm it with him.

The Eucharist which is the Sacrifice of the Cross itself wants to transform us into Christ, (cf. St. Leo the Great, "Discourses", PL 54, 355-357, "Discourse 12 on the Passion", 3, 6, 7) wants to make us others Christ ("christianus alter Chritus") because in true charity, on the way of the Cross, we atone with him and in him for the sins of the world and reach Heaven. The Eucharist is Sacrifice, it transforms bread and wine into Christ but also wants to transform us into Christ so that we can follow him on the way of the Cross in obedient, suffering and repairing charity, so that we can say with himself. Paul: it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me (Gal. 2).

In the Roman Missal we read “May our offering be pleasing to you, O Father, in this night of light, and through this holy exchange of gifts transform us into Christ your Son, who raised man beside you in glory. For Christ our Lord. " (From the Liturgy of Christmas Eve)

In the same Missal we also read “Grant us, almighty Father, that, intoxicated and nourished by these sacraments, we are transformed into Christ whom we have received as the food and drink of life.

He lives and reigns forever and ever. "(From the Liturgy of the XXVII Sunday in Ordinary Time)

The Holy Spirit who guided Christ on the way of the Cross also wants to guide us along the same road, the only one that leads to the blessedness of Heaven. The lives of great Italian saints such as St. Francis of Assisi or s. Catherine of Siena or s. Veronica Giuliani should make an Italian thinker think who, like Eusebi, wants to talk about theology, the Sacrifice of the Cross and divine Justice. St. Francis has achieved the great things that we see in his life and has snatched many souls from sin by following Christ on the path of true charity, which repairs, who suffers who sacrifices himself and the stigmata of him as those of St. Catherine, and those of Padre Pio tell us very significantly what it means to follow Christ and take the Cross with Christ. St. Paul knew all this well when he said: “I was crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live: it is Christ who lives in me ”(Gal. 2). The true Christian is crucified with the Crucifix, charity makes us follow the way of the Cross; the greater the charity, the more it immerses us in the Cross of Christ, in his holiness, in his reparation for sins and therefore also in his sufferings, for the salvation of the world.

In the Collect prayer for the solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus we read: "O God, source of all good, who in the Heart of your Son you have opened to us the infinite treasures of your love, grant that by paying him the homage of our faith we also fulfill to the duty of a just reparation.

For our Lord Jesus Christ… ”The Christian life involves righteous reparation in Christ for the sins of the world. The angel at Fatima significantly told the little children several times to atone for the sins of the world:[422] ... and the angel was full of charity for children and for the world ...

Our Lady at Fatima said to the three little visionaries: “- Do you want to offer yourselves to God to endure all the sufferings that He will want to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins with which He is offended, and of supplication for the conversion of sinners? -Yes, we want. - Then, you will have to suffer a lot, but the grace of God will be your comfort. "[423] Further, still in Fatima, the little seers affirmed: "We understood that it was the Immaculate Heart of Mary, outraged by the sins of humanity, who wanted reparation."[424]

The true affirmations of the saints, of the Doctors and above all of the Bible cancel out the theological affirmations which deny to the suffering lived in charity its saving dimension and reparation of sins. Charity is either that of Christ, reparative charity for the sins of the world on the way to the Cross, or it is not charity and it is only a "love" that does not save! There are many types of love but the love that comes from God and that saves is only the true charity that is lived on the way of the Cross ... and only this love leads to Heaven! Whoever truly loves according to God's will makes himself with Christ the instrument of salvation of the world by taking with him the Cross in all its painful and distressing dimensions. Jesus did not save us with an "intelligent love" but with the true "super intelligent" charity that implements the concrete, hard, terrible, obedient, suffered, bloody reparation for sins ...

St. Thomas precisely affirms that Christ saved us with the true charity that led him to the Cross to make reparation for the sins of the world, as seen above (cf. III q. 46 aa.4-6); for s. Thomas, moreover, Christ with his Passion has given us an example of virtue that we must follow (III q. 46 a.3 in ch. And a.4 in ch.). St. Catherine of Siena and other saints as well as St. Alphonsus teach us that the whole life of Christ was Cross and martyrdom, therefore Christ lived 33 years of charity in suffering, in hardship, in persecutions, he evidently did it to repair all the sins of history. St. Alphonsus affirms: "Jesus for our love wanted from the beginning of his life to suffer the pains of his Passion."[425] Christ's ministry began, significantly, with 40 days of absolute fasting in the wilderness. Sons of God, that is, saved, are those who let themselves be guided by the Holy Spirit, who precisely guides us on the way of Christ, the way of the Cross ... We do not save ourselves with our ideas or with those of certain "theologians" but with the real charity, on the way of the Cross, as the Bible and sound doctrine teaches. To ascend to Heaven there is no other way than the Cross, says the Catechism, in n. 618, more precisely it affirms that Christ: "... calls his disciples to take up their cross and to follow him ... In fact, he wants to associate with his redemptive sacrifice those themselves who are its first beneficiaries (cf. Mk 10,39:21,18; Jn 19, 1,24-1668; Col XNUMX:XNUMX). ... "Outside the cross there is no other ladder to climb to heaven" (Saint Rose of Lima; cf. P. Hansen, Vita mirabilis, Louvain XNUMX) "Christ has left us an example of true charity that is crucified .. reparative … And he calls us to follow him on this path, not by any other path.

St. Paul affirms, in this line, that it is a grace of God, a precious gift from God, to be able to suffer for Christ: “… you have been granted the grace not only to believe in Christ; but also to suffer for him "(Phil. 1,29); In fact, Jesus said: “Blessed are you when they insult you, persecute you and, lying, say every kind of evil against you for my sake. Rejoice and rejoice, for great is your reward in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets before you. ”(Mt 5,11s)… blessed are those who suffer for Christ, great is their reward in heaven! Suffering lived in charity is precious before God and deserves a special reward.

God enlighten us better and better.

e, 2,5) Eusebi wants to cancel the salary dimension inherent in the reality of hell.

Obviously, for Eusebi, hell is not divine retribution for sins committed (pp. 47ff). The dogma of hell[426]however, it is linked to that of Christ the Judge who rewards and condemns; as seen Christ is Goodness but also Justice, He is the Judge ... and in this true justice, and therefore not only saving but also retributive, Christ precisely rewards and punishes ...

Eusebi's attempt fails miserably in the face of Catholic doctrine, in the face of the affirmations of the Fathers, Doctors and the Magisterium who clearly affirm that God is judge, that God rewards and punishes already here below and then after death.

Obviously, among the punishments that God inflicts, there is the eternal punishment of hell.

Pope Pelagius I wrote something very significant about it in the profession of faith sent to a king[427] The righteous, therefore, will receive rewards from Christ the Judge for their actions, the wicked will receive eternal punishments. Each one will receive in the judgment on the basis of what he has done, those who have done evil will receive damnation with eternal punishments.

The Sixth Synod of Toledo wrote that Christ will give to each according to his works, to the just rewards, to the wicked eternal pains[428]

In the Sixteenth Synod of Toledo practically the same was declared[429]

Hadrian I affirmed: God has prepared in his immutability the works of justice and mercy and for the wicked he has prepared the just and eternal tortures.[430]

Innocent III affirmed: we believe and firmly affirm the future judgment that will be fulfilled for the work of Christ who precisely will give eternal punishments or rewards to each on the basis of what each one has done in the flesh. [431]

Benedict XII dogmatically stated: the righteous will receive eternal rewards for their deeds, the wicked will receive hellish pains. [432]

In the Catechism we read in n. 1034: "Jesus repeatedly speaks of" gehenna ", of the" inextinguishable fire ", (cf. Mt 5,22.29; 13,42.50; Mk 9,43-48.) ... Jesus announces ... and he will pronounce the sentence:" Far away from me, cursed, in the eternal fire! "(Mt 25,41)."

Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms the sound doctrine on hell in numbers 1033ss and first of all explains that the cause of our damnation is our sin and not God's "wickedness". Damnation is the penalty decreed by God, from eternity. , for those who die in grave sin. (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1033)

Therefore the Church clearly affirms the existence of hell: “The Church in her teaching affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. ... "(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1035)

There are many texts of the Tradition that clearly state that whoever dies in grave sin is eternally damned.[433]

Obviously, in Eusebi's vision, hell tends to fade into a kind of empty imaginary container, in fact Eusebi cites texts that go in this line (Eusebi p. 47 and p. 50 note 88) while there is no place in the writing of Eusebi for the affirmations of Our Lady at Fatima according to which many are damned: “Pray, pray a lot; and make sacrifices for sinners, because many souls go to hell, because there is no one who sacrifices and intercedes for them. "(Apparition of August 19, 1917) There is no place for the affirmations of the visionary Sister Lucy that in an interview with Father R. Lombardi affirmed that many are damned (Osservatore Romano del 7-2-1954 (weekly edition). many are damned on the basis of the affirmations of the Gospel.

St. Augustine, said: "Many are called the chosen few" therefore few are not driven out. …. Many are in fact the good ones, but in comparison with the bad ones the good ones are few. "[434]

Still s. Augustine said something significant about it [435]

St. Leo the Great said: “… while the width of the road that leads to death is frequented by many crowds, there are few footprints of the few who enter the ways of salvation. " [436]

St. Gregory the Great, Pope and Doctor of the Church affirmed something similar ("XL Homiliarum in Evangelia libri duo", l. 1, homilia 19, chap. 5, PL 76, 1157)

St. Thomas says similar things in many passages, in the Summa he affirmed, in particular: “Cum igitur beatitudo aeterna, in vision Dei consistens, excedat communem statum naturae, et praecipue secundum quod est gratia destituta for corruptionem originalis sins, pauciores sunt qui salvantur. " (I q.23 a.7 to 3m)

Many other statements from Doctors and Fathers can be found along this line.

and, 3) Conclusion on Eusebi's statements.

Eusebi's claims are evidently deviant from sound doctrine about divine retributive justice and its action in history.

Eusebi wonders if the Christian proclamation loses something if distributive terminologies are considered only as an expressive language and not as an essential content[437] the answer, in the light of what we have seen so far, is a strong one: yes! The remuneration dimension is radically inherent in sound doctrine; only by perverting Catholic doctrine can this dimension be excluded from it.

The theological line followed by Eusebi regarding the death penalty lawfulness and its theological and biblical foundations does not stand up to the truth that through the Church (with its Scriptures, with its Fathers, with its Doctors and with its Magisterium) God has revealed to us.

Eusebi's opposition to the lawfulness of the death penalty, like that of the authors seen above, also shows that, normally, those who attack the truth of the lawfulness of the death penalty do so not starting from the Bible and Tradition known in depth but from other data or inaccurate data.

God through his Law clearly affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty and the Bible and Tradition attest to this very clearly.

God enlighten us better and better.

f) Reflections on R. Fastiggi's statements about the death penalty.

God enlighten us better and better.

The professor. Fastigi has carried out an interesting discussion on the death penalty in Catholic doctrine in various articles; first of all there is a 2004 article entitled "Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent," Josephinum Journal of Theology Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer Fall, 2005) p.192-213; I will follow this article but as it is present online [438]; in 2017 we find another article by this author[439] ; on February 18, 2019 we have another article by the same author that touches on our topic[440]

To answer prof. Fastiggi let's start with some precise data.

f, 1) The statements of prof. Claims about the death penalty in the Bible are unfounded.

The professor. Fastiggi essentially states: taken in its entirety, the New Testament provides principles and examples that argue against the application of the death penalty; he refers to the text by Christopher D. Marshall, “Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment” [Eerdmans, 2001], p. 241. The most notable example, Fastiggi adds, of course, is the intervention of Jesus himself to prevent the stoning of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8: 1–11).

Unfortunately for Fastiggi it does not seem to us that, for a Catholic, the statements of Marshall, who in his interpretation totally put aside the Catholic Magisterium and the Fathers, Doctors etc. and more generally the Tradition ... the Bible is interpreted in a correct way by letting itself be guided by Tradition ... our Tradition, as shown above, has always talked about the lawfulness of the death penalty and our Tradition knows the New Testament well and was carried out by the Holy Spirit through people who truly had the Holy Spirit… such as St. Innocent I, s. Thomas, s. Augustine, s. Jerome, s. Ottato ... etc. up to s. John Paul II ...

The Holy Spirit who spoke through Tradition is the same Spirit who wrote the Bible… therefore the Bible itself invites us to follow the holy Traditions and the Tradition deeper.

St. Paul states: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and keep the traditions you have learned from our word as well as from our letter." (2 Thessalonians 2,15:XNUMX)

Dei Verbum states in n. 9: “… sacred Scripture is the word of God insofar as it is delivered in writing by inspiration of the divine Spirit; as for sacred Tradition, it fully transmits the word of God - entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles - to their successors, so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, with their preaching they faithfully preserve it, expose it and spread it; the result is that the Church draws certainty from all things revealed not only from Scripture and that consequently both must be accepted and venerated with an equal feeling of piety and reverence [Cf. Conc. Di Trento, Decr . De canonicis Scripturis: Dz 783 (1501) [Collantes 2.006].) "[441]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms with regard to Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition: "Both make present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his" every day, until at the end of the world "(Mt 28,20)." (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 80)

Still affirms the "Dei Verbum" at n. 10: “Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture constitute a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church; in adhering to it all the holy people, united with their Pastors, assiduously persevere in the teaching of the apostles and in fraternal communion, in the breaking of bread and in prayers (cf. Acts 2,42 gr.), so that, in the to retain, practice and profess the faith transmitted, a singular unity of spirit is established between pastors and faithful [Cf. Pius XII, Apost. Const. Munificentissimus Deus, 1st Nov. 1950: AAS 42 (1950), p. 756, which reports the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 66, 8: CSEL 3, 2, 733: "The Church is a people gathered around the Priest and a flock united to its Shepherd".].

In an important speech to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Benedict XVI affirmed that there are three valid criteria for an interpretation of Scripture in conformity with the Holy Spirit who is the main Author of it: "First of all, great attention must be paid to the content and unity of all Scripture ... Secondly, it is necessary to read Scripture in the context of the living tradition of the whole Church. … As a third criterion it is necessary to pay attention to the analogy of faith… To respect the coherence of the faith of the Church, the Catholic exegete must be careful to perceive the Word of God in these texts, within the very faith of the Church. … Furthermore, the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures… must always be compared, inserted and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is decisive for clarifying the correct and reciprocal relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church. ... there is an inseparable unity between Sacred Scripture and Tradition ...: "... Therefore both must be accepted and venerated with an equal feeling of piety and reverence" (Dei Verbum, 9). As we know, this word “pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia” was created by Saint Basil… It expresses precisely this inter-penetration between Scripture and Tradition. Only the ecclesial context allows Sacred Scripture to be understood as the authentic Word of God ... "[442]

Only the ecclesial context allows Sacred Scripture to be understood as an authentic Word of God… remember prof. You hurry when he mentions Marshall ...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms in n. 84: "The deposit (Cf 1 Tm 6,20; 2 Tm 1,12-14) of the faith (" depositum fidei "), contained in sacred Tradition and in Sacred Scripture, was entrusted by the Apostles to the whole Church."

Tradition, as is evident from what we said above when talking about the affirmations of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes, is very clear in affirming, on the basis of the Scriptures, the lawfulness of the death penalty ...

And Tradition makes such affirmations also because the Bible, correctly interpreted, is very clear, contrary to what Marshall says, in affirming the legitimacy of the death penalty; there. Testament, as we have seen, clearly affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty and commands it for various crimes, Joshua put Achan to death guilty of serious disobedience during the war, Elijah killed the 400 prophets of Baal etc .; the N. Testament accepts this lawfulness; the scholar E. Christian Brugger, while in favor of the inadmissibility of the death penalty, rightly states: "The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be hardly any doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by New Testament authors. "[443] The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be no doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by the authors of the New Testament ... and especially by the Author of the New Testament, who is the same Author as the Old Testament. !

The image we invariably receive when the New Testament recounts meetings with civil authorities in which death is at stake is that of a normal judicial practice, which is questioned only when it is thought to be unfairly exercised.[444]

Cardinal Dulles states: "No passage from the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty."[445]

The New Testament does not condemn the death penalty but rather takes it for granted and indeed in some of its passages it legitimizes it; the New Testament therefore fully accepts what the Old Testament basically affirms in this regard, namely that the death penalty is fully legitimate.

Card. Journet was able to significantly affirm, in this line: "Yes l'Évangile interdit aux États d'appliquer jamais la peine de mort, saint Paul lui-même alors a trahi l'Évangile" [446] whose Italian translation is: "If the Gospel prohibits States from applying the death penalty, then St. Paul himself has betrayed the Gospel" ... St. Paul, who knows the Gospel and Christ well, writes, in this line, with an evident reference to the death penalty, that the authority “… not in vain… carries the sword; he is in fact at the service of God for the just condemnation of those who do evil "(Rom. 13, 4). In his article on the death penalty H. Lio[447] examine this text by s. Paul (Rom. 13,4) and first affirms that this text cannot be explained otherwise except in the sense that the magistrates can punish men with the sword and that the magistrates received and exercise this distinguished right of life and death. not recklessly but so that with it they punish those who act for evil, so quote from this passage from St. Paolo the comment of the famous exegete F. Prat that the magistrates do not carry the sword in vain, symbol of the right of life and death: a formidable right that can only come from the Master of life; therefore their punishments are the punishments of God (cf. F. Prat, "La Theologie de saint Paul", II, Beauchesne, Paris 1949 p. 392), F. Prat's comment is practically the same as that of other Catholic exegetes regarding this passage, in this same sense they understood this passage s. Augustine, s. Innocent I, s. Thomas and practically all Catholic theologians[448].

The famous exegete Ricciotti in his text “The letters of s. Paolo translated and commented "ed. Coletti, Rome, 1949, on p. 353, explains that the statement of St. Paul (Romans 13,4) for whom authority carries "the sword" is a metonymy for the right to punish, which began with the death penalty, the ius gladii, and went down to the lesser penalties "Obviously in s. Paul speaks God, Christ speaks and St. Paul spreads the Gospel.

As seen above in chap. 8 of the Gospel of St. John offers no indication of Christ's opposition to the death penalty in general, rather it rather shows, especially when seen in the context of the entire New Testament, that Christ is in favor of the death penalty when it is imposed in accordance with justice.

All this and much more that we can read in great exegetes and Doctors and Popes in this line makes us understand that Fastiggi's statement that, taken in its entirety, the New Testament provides principles and examples that argue against the application of the death penalty and the statement of Pope Francis that: the death penalty is a penalty contrary to the Gospel, because it means suppressing a life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which only God he is a true judge and guarantor.[449]

God free his Church from these errors!

f, 2) Prof. Fastiggi evidently has an imprecise idea of ​​the claims of the Fathers of the Church regarding the death penalty

The professor. Fastiggi evidently has an imprecise idea of ​​the claims of the Fathers of the Church regarding the death penalty[450] because it follows Thomas Williams' erroneous claims  [451] that Fastiggi mentions[452] Fastiggi's errors about the Fathers are also highlighted in another of his articles in which he talks about the death penalty.[453]

Unlike Williams, Brugger's text on the subject clarifies the question well, in it the author carries out an in-depth patristic study (the best, as far as I know, on this subject) even if not completely complete and affirms that the Fathers they were essentially in agreement in affirming the lawfulness of the death penalty… writes Brugger: “For the Fathers of the early Church, the authority of the state to kill malefactors is taken for granted. Opinions differed on whether Christians should hold offices whose responsibilities include the judging and carrying out of capital punishments — pre-Constantinian authors said they should not, those writing after ad 313 said they should — but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned. "[454]

For the early Church Fathers, the authority of the state to kill evildoers is taken for granted. Opinions differed as to whether Christians were to hold positions whose responsibilities included judging and carrying out capital punishment - pre-Constantinian authors said they shouldn't, those writing after the 313 edict said they should - but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned.

I underline that Brugger's text presents a profound patristic study ... unlike other authors ... In this book of mine I have added, with respect to Brugger's text, some further quotations from the Fathers and presented by some other scholars, p. ex. I have added some quotes from the works of s. Ottato di Milevi and the works of s. Jerome.

A practically unanimous consensus on the lawfulness of the death penalty can be recognized among the Fathers.

I point out that the unanimous consensus of the fathers on a question does not require everyone to say precisely the same thing on the point ... Cardinal Dulles in fact goes on to say: "Returning to the Christian Tradition, we can note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are almost unanimous in supporting capital punishment .... "[455]

Brugger after an in-depth study of the Fathers states more precisely: “Throughout the Patristic period, as we have seen, texts that question the prerogative of civil authority to exercise the death penalty are notably absent. In those accounts that address the question directly we find a virtually unanimous acceptance of such authority. Where reasons are elaborated, this acceptance is invariably grounded in an appeal to Scripture, in particular, Romans 13. "[456] Throughout the patristic period, the texts that question the prerogative of the civil authority to exercise the death penalty are absent. In those accounts that directly address the issue we find an almost unanimous acceptance of that authority. Where reasons are elaborated, this acceptance is invariably grounded in an appeal to Scripture, especially Romans 13.

In a beautiful article on this subject, Fr. A. Bellon, after having specified who the Holy Fathers are, reports the affirmations of Fr. Congar according to which: “The unanimis consensus Patrum (the unanimous consent of the Fathers) is a sure norm. It expresses the sense of the Church, and unanimity is always the hallmark of the Holy Spirit.

This is a moral consensus, which does not exclude the existence of some divergent voices. " [457].

At the moment there do not seem to be any voices of Fathers who radically oppose the lawfulness of the death penalty, but even if there were some rare voices truly diverging from the unanimous consent of the Fathers, this consent would be equally unanimous.

Regarding the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is necessary to remember what Vatican Council I affirms “… no one should be allowed to interpret this Scripture…. against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. "[458]

f, 3) Prof. Fastiggi is based on largely insufficient documentation regarding magisterial affirmations on the subject of the death penalty

The professor. Fastiggi in fact states: “What then has been the teaching of the Magisterium on capital punishment prior to Evangelium Vitae? Usually, three texts are mentioned: 1) the profession of faith required by Pope Innocent III for the Waldensians seeking reconciliation with the Church in 1210; 2) the recognition of the lawful execution of criminals by the Catechism of the Council of Trent (known as the Roman Catechism) in 1566; and 3) a reference made by Pope Pius XII on the subject in his Sept. 13, 1952 address to the First International Congress on Histopathology of the Nervous System. 1 Each of these magisterial statements needs to be considered individually. "[459]

Fastiggi reduces the magisterial affirmations on the subject to three steps ... but the affirmations on the subject are many more ... just go to the paragraph above that I dedicated to the affirmations of the Popes on this topic ... to discover that there are many ... and they concern a topic very serious, like that of the imposition of the death penalty on a man! So certainly these Popes who talked about it did so with great knowledge of the facts, and as we have seen, the Popes at times asked and had capital punishment applied through the secular arm ...

Precisely in one of the papal texts not cited by Fastiggi, in his 2005 article[460] a text by Innocent I in the letter to Exsuperius, of the year 405, we read “The question arises about those who after Baptism were public administrators and used only the instruments of torture or even issued the death sentence. We do not read anything about them as defined by the ancients. It should be remembered that such powers were granted by God and that, to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, furthermore it was indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4) How could they condemn a behavior who did they see was granted by the authority of God? With regard to them, therefore, we continue to regulate ourselves as we have been regulated up to now, so that it does not appear that we subvert the discipline or that we go against the authority of the Lord. It is reserved for them to give an account of all their actions. " [461]

Fastiggi quotes the text of Innocent I in another article[462] to underline the statement that: "" We do not read anything about them as defined by the ancients. " and therefore to note that such a statement would be significant because it demonstrates that nothing has been handed down in the deposit of faith on the issues of judicial torture or capital punishment. The judgment of Innocent I, therefore, according to Fastiggi, was not definitive.

Fastiggi, however, does not examine everything that surrounds that self-affirmation. Innocent I ... and does not thoroughly examine what St. Innocent ...

The text of s. Innocent I must be well analyzed, it affirms above all that Innocent follows Tradition and follows Scripture (Rm 13); these powers, explains the Pope himself, were granted by God and, to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, moreover it has been indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4). The Pope himself further explains that his predecessors could not condemn a behavior which they saw as having been granted by the authority of God.

Obviously here the Pope is saying that the lawfulness of the death penalty is divinely revealed in fact he states: "... such powers were granted by God and ... to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, furthermore it was indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4) "... Innocent I is also saying that he follows Tradition and the Bible:" ... we continue to regulate ourselves as we have been regulated up to now, so that it does not appear that we subvert the discipline or that we go against the authority of the Lord. It is reserved for them to give an account of all their actions. "

Evidently the discipline then in force was that and Innocent conformed to it which was evidently linked to the Bible ... But how to interpret the statement that: "We do not read anything about these as defined by the ancients."? Simply believing that it was evident that God Himself had defined the matter through himself. Paul (Rm 13, 1. 4) "How could they condemn a behavior which they saw as having been granted by the authority of God?"

There was no need for anything else, God had defined the matter! The expression for which nothing had been defined must be understood in the sense that for the ancients it was very clear that for himself. Paul and therefore for God the death penalty was lawful so that there was no need to define anything about it but it was simply necessary to create a discipline corresponding to the affirmations of God and self. Paul.

St. Innocent therefore follows Tradition and this discipline, and follows Scripture (Rm 13); these powers, the Pope himself specifies, were granted by God and, to punish the wicked, the sword was allowed, moreover it has been indicated that the minister of God punishes in this way (Rm 13, 1. 4). How could they condemn, Innocent's predecessors, a behavior which they saw as having been granted by the authority of God in such a clear and precise way? Therefore, given the lawfulness of the death penalty, s. Innocent reiterates the line of Tradition according to which it had to be the magistrate himself to see if he had committed a sin in imposing the death penalty or if he had behaved correctly.

Furthermore Fastiggi reports in the same article, immediately after the quotation of the text of Innocent I, a quotation from the writings of Pope s. Nicholas I who, according to Fastiggi, would indicate that this Pope appeals to Christian principles, not prudential ones, to argue against the death penalty. Here, too, Fastiggi's claims are unfounded: yes. Nicholas I, as I have shown above and as we will see further on, does not simply speak against the death penalty, He accepts this penalty but simply wants to put a Christian brake on the barbarous punishments that the Bulgarians inflicted on the condemned ... in fact, among the other, it does not condemn the practice of the death penalty that was common then in Europe and in the world ... I underline that not only was Nicholas I a saint ... but also Innocent I ... and Fastiggi should point it out ... and both of these saints were in favor of the death penalty ...

Fastiggi reports his summary of a document that the Pontifical Commission of Justice et Pax published in 1976 regarding the death penalty: "" 1) The Church has never directly addressed the question of the State's right to exercise the death penalty; 2) The Church has never condemned its use by the State; 3) The Church has condemned the denial of that right; 4) Recent popes have stressed the rights of the person and the medicinal role of punishment. " [463]. From Fastiggi's summary 4 points emerge that: the Church 1) has never directly addressed the question of the state's right to exercise the death penalty; 2) you have never condemned its use by the state; 3) you have condemned the denial of this right; 4) recent Popes have emphasized the rights of the person and the medicinal role of punishment.

That the Church has never directly addressed the question of the state of the right to exercise the death penalty the right of the state to exercise the death penalty seems to me an imprecise statement: the Bible is very clear about it and for 2000 years we have seen that Fathers, Popes and Doctors have very clearly affirmed, in general, the lawfulness of the death penalty and have also clearly condemned those who denied this lawfulness, the Popes have directly requested the application of this penalty for criminals and have done so apply in the Papal State. Obviously this has been achieved not on the basis of some supposition or an insecure doctrine but on the basis of great doctrinal clarity. It was clear to such Popes that such punishment was legitimate on the basis of the Bible and Tradition. Furthermore, the great doctors and great theologians have examined this very important topic in their works. Obviously in all of this we must see the Church dealing with breadth and depth and defining this question through her prominent men. If we examine the various statements and the various pronouncements carefully, we can see how the question has been resolved at a radical level. It should be emphasized that this question is of fundamental importance because it concerns the life of a person and the definition of a decisive application of the fifth commandment, so if so many saints, including so many doctors, and so many popes have affirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty, they obviously did so. after making sure of God's will in this regard.

More profoundly we can say that Christ, Head of the Church, knows his Law very well and in 2000 years he has led his saints and pastors very clearly, unanimously, to affirm, on the basis of his Word, the lawfulness of the death penalty ... the Church knew the question very deeply in Christ before unanimously affirming the lawfulness of the death penalty through the mouth of so many holy and wise men.

In this line, the Church, as the document cited by Fastiggi says, has condemned the denial of the state's right to use the death penalty and has never condemned, in general, its use by the state.

Exactly taking up this document Fastiggi states: “Judging from this report of the Pontifical Commission, the only unchanging aspect of the Catholic tradition might be under # 3, which would uphold a theoretical recognition of the state's right to use the death penalty. This is probably a reference to the 1210 profession of faith prescribed for the Waldensians. Yet even in this regard, the Commission did not specify whether this teaching was definitive or irreformable. " [464]

Judging by this report from the Pontifical Commission, Fastiggi says, the only immutable aspect of the Catholic tradition could be number 3, which would support a theoretical recognition of the state's right to use the death penalty. This is probably a reference to the 1210 profession of faith prescribed for the Waldensians. Yet, even in this regard, the Commission did not specify whether this teaching was definitive or irreformable.

I note that after this 1976 document of this Commission there have been various high-level Papal pronouncements which have reaffirmed the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases: the Catechism of the Catholic Church at n. 2267 and the encyclical Evangelium Vitae at n. 56; in addition, the "Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church" was published in 2004 by the organism of the Holy See which was once the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace and in this Compendium, in nos. 405 affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty in some cases even though not so cruel methods are obviously considered preferable.
I also point out to prof. Fastiggi, regarding the profession of faith imposed on Durando[465] that it was precisely a profession of faith, that this profession also concerned the lawfulness of the death penalty, that this profession was imposed on the Waldensians, and that if they did not accept it they could not be part of the Catholic Church ... I repeat: if they did not accept it they would not they could be part of the Catholic Church! It seems to me that this fact should be particularly taken into account: to be part of the Church it was necessary to affirm the lawfulness of the death penalty.

Brugger in his text on the death penalty also reports a letter from Innocent III to Durando written in July 1209 in which the Pontiff affirms that it is a mistake to affirm that the secular power cannot, without mortal sin, condemn someone to death; Brugger's quote is as follows: Letter of Innocent III, “to Durand of Huesca and his brethren,” 5 July 1209; Regesta XV, XII.69; translated in HHM, 226–28 [466]

All this means that it was clear at the time that these statements about the lawfulness of the death penalty were part of the Church's faith ... the lawfulness of the death penalty was considered a fundamental part of the Catholic faith, so much so that it was included, unlike other Catholic statements. , in a profession of faith! Most significantly, for centuries all have fully accepted and no one has ever condemned the fact that the legitimacy of the death penalty was included in a profession of faith of the Church in such texts of Innocent III; obviously for everyone it was clear that this legitimacy was part of sound Catholic doctrine.

In 1215, as we saw, during the IV Lateran Council (XII Ecumenical), the Excommunicamus canon was adopted which ordered the abandonment of heretics, condemned, "to the secular powers" (Const. 3) ... with consequent imposition of the death penalty (COD p. 233 ff.) this text will pass into the Decretals of Gregory IX, the official collection of the laws of the Church [467]; the same solution will be adopted by the Council of Constance (XVI ecumenical) against the wyclifites (cf. COD pp. 414ss) and the Hussites (cf. COD p. 429, condemnation at the stake of Hus), the Council of Constance precisely in the text just quoted decrees the condemnation to the stake of the heretic Hus.

Among the sentences condemned by the Council of Constance in Wicleff's doctrine there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of heretics to the secular arm in fact he affirms that God cannot approve that one is civilly judged or civilly condemned (cf. COD p . 425, 44).

Among the sentences of Hus condemned by the Council of Constance there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of the heretics to the secular arm (cf. COD p. 430, n.14)

I remember that: "Martin V, elected Pope in Constance in 1417, in the bull Inter cunctas of 22 February 1418, recognized the ecumenical nature of the Council of Constance and all that it had decided, albeit with the generically restrictive formula:" fidei et salutem animarum "."[468]

Pope Martin V, in 1418, drew up a questionnaire to examine the doctrine professed by people suspected of wyclifism and hussism, in it the person was explicitly asked if he believed in the possibility for prelates to appeal to the secular arm[469] … And therefore to have the death penalty inflicted. Such a question is extremely significant of the importance of this question within Catholic doctrine; if it were not important, and very important, it certainly would not have been given to these people to recognize their catholicity ... even here we can see how the lawfulness of the death penalty is considered a fundamental part of the Catholic faith!

Leo X, as we saw, in 1520, also included this among Luther's errors: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit".[470] This statement clearly indicates that it is legitimate for Catholic doctrine to inflict the death penalty in some cases. The error for which Luther denies that the death penalty for heresy can be inflicted falls within the errors indicated by Leo X in this way:

we have seen that these same errors or articles are not Catholic, and should not be believed as such, but that they are contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and to Tradition, above all to the true and common interpretation of the divine Scriptures ... in fact it clearly derives from the same errors or from some that the same Church, which is governed by the Holy Spirit, errs and has always erred. [471]

Pope Leo XIII wrote in "Pastoralis Officii", an encyclical letter of 1881: "It is well established that both divine laws, both the one that has been proposed with the light of reason, and the one that has been promulgated with divinely inspired writings, prohibit to anyone, absolutely, to kill or injure a man in the absence of a just public reason, unless forced by the need to defend his life. "[472] ... in this last text it is clearly indicated that the truth is divinely revealed that it is forbidden for anyone, in the most absolute way, to kill or injure a man in the absence of a just public reason, unless forced to do so by necessity to defend their life. This means that the divinely revealed Law of God considers the death penalty lawful in some cases.

Until 1870 the Papal State imposed the death penalty quietly, without any doubt about it. This is only an indirect justification, but it is obvious that if this practice were contrary to the Gospel, it would not have had the right of citizenship for so many centuries in the Papal State which in that period was also led by many saints. More precisely: the death penalty was foreseen and also applied by practically all the Popes until the abolition of the Papal State in 1870. The Popes applied the death penalty in the Papal State and the Criminal Code of the Holy See provided for until 1962 the death penalty for those who try to kill the Pope.[473]

Obviously, all this was done in the absolute certainty, taken from the Bible and from Tradition, that this penalty was legitimate according to the Law of God.

We will return later with more precision on this point of the irreformability of the doctrine that affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty, when we examine Brugger's affirmations, but already now I seem to have to note that this doctrine is recognized as:

1) clearly taught by natural law and the Bible;

2) unanimously affirmed by the Fathers and by great doctors such as s. Thomas, s. Bonaventure, s. Roberto Bellarmino, s. Alfonso de 'Liguori;

3) proposed as necessary for the Catholic faith;

4) continuously reaffirmed by the Magisterium with absolute certainty;

5) implemented with absolute safety for practically 2000 years so that on the basis of it thousands of death sentences were imposed.

All this seems to me to lead us to affirm that we are in the field of infallibility ... and that this indicates, as we deduce from Leo XIII that "both divine laws, both the one that has been proposed with the light of reason, and the one that is was promulgated with divinely inspired writings "consider the death penalty lawful.

E. Lio, as we have seen, wrote, very acutely, that all theologians usually take as an argument to demonstrate the intrinsic lawfulness of the death penalty the general consensus of all nations in imposing this penalty; whoever wants to deny the lawfulness of this penalty under the natural law should also reject the argument drawn from the consent of all peoples [474]. The lawfulness of the death penalty is, therefore, a truth proclaimed by the natural law and by the positive divine law… and reaffirmed by the Church!

It should be noted that to hold that the death penalty is inadmissible means to affirm that all the biblical authors, and therefore the Bible, and also the saints, the Popes, the Doctors and therefore the Holy Spirit who guided them, were wrong and did not realized that the death penalty is a grave sin and is inherently evil… which is simply absurd! Note that the lawfulness of the death penalty is not a question of hidden, difficult faith, domination of only a few, it is instead a question that has always been in front of everyone, which is openly taught by all peoples, is affirmed in the Ancient Testament, accepted by the New and accepted simply and fully practically by all the Tradition, by all the Popes, up to Benedict XVI, and by all the Doctors and practically by all the Holy Fathers.

Therefore, this sentence cannot be reformed in order to affirm the inadmissibility of the death penalty, and in particular, it cannot be reformed on the basis of the inconsistent reasons presented by the Pope and his collaborators.

g) Reflections on the statements of E. Christian Brugger in "Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition" on the death penalty.

God enlighten us better and better.

Let us now examine the work of E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014.

g, 1) Reflections on the affirmations of E. Christian Brugger regarding the death penalty in Holy Scripture.

The biblical documentation of Brugger's text, in some respects appears very precise and examined with impartiality.

Brugger thoroughly examines the A. Testament and rightly states: "Death is prescribed more than forty times and for over twenty offenses throughout the various law codes of the books of the Pentateuch. 1 Serious crimes against religion, the order of the family and community, and human life were all punished with death. " (p. 60) The death penalty was prescribed in the A. Testament more than 40 times and for about 20 crimes against religion, community, family and people's life.

Israel, particularly after the exile, was a political entity, a theocratic nation.

The Law, explains Brugger, was the legal code of Israel and God was the political and legal ruler of Israel, obedience to the Law was at the same time obedience to God and fidelity to the community whose identity he shaped, while the its violation was an act of rebellion against God as well as hostility against the community; the Law had been given to the nation as a whole so the whole community was bound by its ordinances (cf. Lev. 20:22) so the violations involved the whole community in guilt. The death penalty, continues Brugger, had not only the retributive function of atoning for guilt but also that of eliminating an influence harmful to Israel, furthermore this penalty had the pedagogical role of stimulating within the community a fear of disobedience (Deut. 13:11, 17:13, 19:20, 21:21) and to remind Israel of God's faithfulness and power (Deut. 3: 21-22); the death penalty against enemies served as a warning to them that the God of Israel (Deut. 2:25) was to be greatly feared.[475]

Brugger, while in favor of the inadmissibility of the death penalty, then passing to examine the New Testament states: "The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be hardly any doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by New Testament authors. "[476] The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be no doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by the New Testament authors and especially by the New Testament Author.

The image we invariably receive when the New Testament recounts meetings with civil authorities where the death penalty is at stake is that of a normal judicial practice, which is questioned only when it is thought that it is being exercised unjustly.[477] More thoroughly we can say that the New Testament confirms the fundamental affirmation of the A. Testament that the death penalty is lawful and this seems to me to explain very well why the Fathers, as Brugger says, absolutely unanimously affirm the lawfulness of the death penalty [478].

g, 1,1) Deviant statements of E. Christian Brugger regarding the death penalty in Holy Scripture.

g, 1,1,1) Deviant statements of E. Christian Brugger about Gen. 9,5-6

The biblical documentation of Brugger, which, as mentioned in some aspects is good and thorough, leaves something to be desired in other aspects and other conclusions ... Scripture must be interpreted in Tradition, as Vatican II teaches and as Benedict XVI reiterated ... and it does not seem that Brugger did this type of exegetical work.

Brugger speaks of the text of Gen.9,5: 6-XNUMX and states that strict compliance with this prescription would require justice that all murderers be killed, this in turn

would imply that the granting of leniency is wrong, since if it were granted,

justice would not be carried out, which has never been taught by the Church. Furthermore, Brugger continues, even admitting that before Christ the shedding of human blood was required as a corrective for some sins, which Gen. 9,5-6 and Leviticus 17,11 directly affirm, Christ's death and resurrection worked a change in the moral order that eliminates the need for bloodshed; the re-presentation in the Eucharist of that timeless sacrifice of Christ offered on the Cross is an august reminder that blood no longer needs to be shed for the atonement of sins.[479]

The biblical text in question states: “Of your blood, that is, of your life, I will ask for an account; I will ask an account of every living being and I will ask an account of the life of man from man, of each of his brothers. Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed by man,

because man was made in the image of God. " (Gen. 9,5: 6-XNUMX)

In his considerations on this text Brugger leaves aside Tradition and therefore the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture: according to Tradition, which considers the death penalty lawful, as we have seen, and which knows this text well, it obviously indicates that the of death is lawful, as the text itself says very clearly, after this text in many passages of the Bible, as we have seen, God positively commands the imposition of the death penalty precisely because it is lawful and fully consistent with God's will for humanity; the text in question, correctly interpreted, does not state that the death penalty must always be applied and for any killing, in fact the TA already provides cases in which the death penalty must not be imposed for the killing of another person : Elijah is not killed for having slaughtered the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18), Phinees is not killed for having pierced the Jewish man and the Midianite woman who were sexually uniting (Num. 25) etc ..

The passage of Gn. 9,6 must be interpreted and implemented with due wisdom and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who affirms, as the whole Bible and Tradition teaches, that the death penalty is lawful in some cases.

The text of Gn. 9,6 must be interpreted in the more immediate context of chapter 9 and in the broader context of the entire Scripture and is evidently a precept that aims to defend the innocent and to root out the wickedness that leads to murder outside the cases in which God makes such killing lawful. The text of Gn. 9,6 is addressed more directly to humanity recently punished with the flood precisely because of its wickedness but more generally aims to prevent wickedness from spreading again at any time; on the other hand, recognizing that man is the image of God and therefore is precious, it implicitly limits revenge so that the death penalty can be decreed for an act of particular gravity such as murder and not for acts of lesser weight. All men are the image of God, implicitly says Gen. 9,6, therefore only for their serious crimes can they be punished with severe penalties and especially with death. Faced with the temptation to enforce Lamech's rule according to which: “… for a wound I received I killed a man and a boy for a scratch. If Cain is to be avenged seven times, Lamech will be avenged seventy-seven times. " (Gen. 4,23s) and therefore in the face of the temptation that leads to impose a penalty disproportionate to an evil action, Gen. 9,6 affirms that man must be guided by God in doing justice and must apply just and proportionate to the crimes.

Man is in fact the image of God ... therefore whoever judges and condemns man outside the divine precept and applies disproportionate penalties to him goes against the divine command and will be justly condemned by God. How God threatened to punish those who arrogated to themselves the right to kill Cain, without God having fixed this penalty at the time (Gen 4,15:XNUMX), so God threatens to punish every man who wants to do justice in an unjust way by imposing penalties that are disproportionate to crimes.

Rightly understood, the command fixed in Gen. 9, 6 has a universal value and, as emerges from Tradition, it has not been canceled by the Sacrifice of Christ and his Resurrection.

Brugger states that, even admitting that before Christ the shedding of human blood was required as a corrective for some sins, which Gen.9,6 and Leviticus 17,11 directly affirm, Christ's death and resurrection brought about a change in the moral order that eliminates the need for bloodshed.[480] but the Tradition which certainly knows well the Sacrifice of Christ and the passage of Gen. 9,6 has never said that after the resurrection of Christ the death penalty no longer has any meaning and that therefore the precept of Gen. 9,6 does not applies more.

The death penalty with its deterrent power and the physical elimination of criminals serves in fact in particular to protect the community from the wicked; for this protection, of course, the Sacrifice of Christ is not enough, but the real implementation of the penalty is necessary; in this line, Tradition has always confirmed the lawfulness, in some cases, of the death penalty by including this lawfulness in the more general lawfulness of self-defense, the affirmations of various Fathers, of s. Thomas, of various Popes and in particular n. 56 of the encyclical Evangelium Vitae are very significant in this sense.

Capital punishment is therefore fully consistent with God's will for humanity, the Holy Scriptures, as we are seeing and as we shall see, indicate it with extreme clarity if examined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is the author of the Bible and he is also the One who guided the Fathers, Doctors and Popes who, in fact, unanimously, have been affirming the legitimacy of this punishment for 2000 years.

g, 1,1,2) Deviant statements of E. Christian Brugger regarding Rom. 13,1-7

Brugger carries out an extensive exegesis of Rom. 13,1-7[481]

Contrary to what Brugger affirms, with regard to Rm 13,4 and in particular on the question of the value of the term μάχαιραν it is necessary to say, on the basis of the affirmations of great biblical scholars and on the basis of the biblical data, that the affirmation of St. Paul (Rm 13,4) for whom authority carries "the sword" is a metonymy for the right to punish, which began with the death penalty, the ius gladii, and went down to the lesser penalties.[482]

Regarding this, I refer to what has been said more fully above in the paragraph in which I speak of the teachings of the New Testament in relation to the lawfulness of the death penalty; here very briefly I repeat that F. Zorell in his "Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti", Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome 1990 with the. 805 specifies that the term machaira has various meanings: major knife, in particular small sword but is generally used in the meaning of sword and indicates death by metonymy (Rm 8,35) and indicates the right to punish (Rm 13,4) ... and rightly Ricciotti, as we have just seen, highlights that the affirmation of s. Paul (Romans 13,4) for whom authority carries "the sword" is a metonymy for the right to punish, which began with the death penalty, the ius gladii, and went down to the lesser penalties ". Therefore the text of Rm 13, 4 clearly and strongly affirms the death penalty ... in fact the term sword is also used in Rm 8,35 and Ricciotti also specifies there that it is a metonymy that indicates violent death (G. Ricciotti "The letters of St. Paul translated and commented "ed. Coletti, Rome, 1949 p. 323) In the letter to the Hebrews 11,37 the term μάχαιρα machaira is used to indicate death given with the sword. In conclusion, the statement of St. Paul (Romans 13,4) for whom authority carries "the sword" is, as Ricciotti explained, a metonymy for the right to punish, which began with the death penalty, the ius gladii, and went down to the lesser penalties ". With what the Rom. 13, as stated by St. Innocent I, s. Paul highlights in particular the fact that legitimate authority has from God the power to punish, according to justice, evildoers and also to inflict death on them.

Furthermore, the passage of Pius XII quoted by Brugger does not want to exclude, contrary to what Brugger himself affirms, that s. Paul speaks of capital punishment, the Pontiff says in fact: "... We also pointed out that the Church in theory and in practice has maintained the double kind of punishment (medicinal and vindictive) and that this is more in accordance with what the sources of revelation and the traditional doctrine teach about the coercive power of legitimate human authority. This assertion is not given a sufficient answer, observing that the aforementioned sources contain only thoughts corresponding to the historical circumstances and the culture of the time, and that therefore they cannot be attributed a general and always lasting value. Since the words of the sources and of the living magisterium do not refer to the concrete content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (see especially Rom 13: 4), but to the very essential foundation of penal power and its immanent purpose. This then is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture, as the nature of man and human society willed by nature itself. "[483]

Pope Pius XII is responding to those who affirm that: (1) the sources of revelation, that is, the biblical texts and especially Rom 13: 4, contain only thoughts corresponding to the historical circumstances and the culture of the time, and (2) therefore they do not can attribute to these texts a general and always lasting value.

Pius XII is therefore responding to those who want to present the message of some biblical texts and especially of Rom. 13,4 as something belonging to the past culture, which is valid only for the past and which is therefore unsuitable for other times.

For this reason Pius XII affirms: the words of the sources and of the living magisterium do not refer to the concrete content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (see especially Rom 13: 4), that is, to norms valid only then and not today, but rather they refer to the essential foundation of penal power and its immanent finality, which, like the nature of man and human society willed by nature itself, is little determined by the conditions of time and culture. If we examine the sources of Revelation, that is, the biblical texts (in particular Rom. 13,4), and the texts of the living Magisterium, to which Pius XII refers, we understand precisely that they do not contain only statements corresponding to the historical-cultural circumstances of that time and valid only for those times but contain a teaching that pertains to the very essential foundation of criminal power and its immanent purpose, in fact s. Paul states (Rom 13,3: XNUMXs): “In fact, rulers are not to be feared when good is done, but when evil is done. Do you want not to be afraid of authority? Do good and you will have praise for it, for it is at the service of God for your good. But if you do evil, then you must fear, because it is not in vain that she carries the sword; she is in fact at the service of God for the just condemnation of those who do evil. " These texts therefore contain a teaching that always applies.

Pius XII does not want to exclude what St. Paolo regarding the lawfulness of the death penalty, but he wants to make it clear that the affirmations of St. Paul are always worth!

Pius XII does not want to cancel what is clearly intrinsic to the text of St. Paul, as we have seen above, that is, the lawfulness of the death penalty, rather means that yes. Paul is not giving a discourse that concerns only the times and the culture of the Apostle himself but he is making a more general discourse.

g, 1,1,3) Other deviant statements of E. Christian Brugger about the Bible and the death penalty.

Brugger concludes his examination of Scripture by asking whether in the light of his considerations, Scripture affirms that capital punishment is fully consistent with God's will for humanity; such considerations of him, as he saw, are inaccurate and his final conclusions, made in the light of such considerations, are wrong.

Regarding these final considerations, it must be said that Brugger essentially puts aside the fact that the whole Tradition affirms that the death penalty is lawful.

Brugger cites the patristic and Thomistic distinction between moral precepts and ceremonial precepts of the OT and puts the death penalty among the latter, that is, among the precepts that are canceled in the NT, but forgets that the Fathers and s. Thomas consider the death penalty as lawful in some cases and therefore not abolished by the coming of Christ and not included at a fundamental level among the ceremonial precepts [484].

Brugger then affirms that the divine command also permits behaviors that otherwise would not be justifiable; the American scholar cites s. Thomas that the presence of a divine command makes certain types of behaviors just that would otherwise be prohibited, therefore the acts of the Jews in plundering the Egyptians were right and they were not acts of theft precisely because they were commanded by God and the consent of Abraham to kill Isaac precisely because he was commanded by God etc.

Brugger then states that all the precepts of killing in the Old Testament, whether in the form of punishments, herem, or wars of aggression, were given in the form of divine commands; the same types of deliberate behavior would be illegitimate in the absence of a particular divine command ... so only if there is an express command from God is it lawful to impose the death penalty. [485]

Here too Brugger puts aside the Tradition which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty on the basis of the natural law and the revealed law; it is lawful and just according to natural law and revealed law, Tradition says, that in some cases the civil power kills wicked people, so no express command from God is required to make the death penalty lawful on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it would take an express command from God to do something that appears contrary to the natural or revealed Law.

Furthermore, Brugger continues, it could be argued that the social conditions in which the precepts to kill were exercised, that is, in the context of an independent theocratic nation, are sufficiently incommensurable with the conditions under which capital punishment was practiced in the Christian era therefore those precepts are inapplicable outside the theocratic community in which they were received.[486]

As we have seen, however, it is licit and just according to the natural law and the revealed law, according to Tradition, that in some cases the civil power kills evil people, and this is true, the Tradition specifies, generally and for everyone and not only for the theocratic nation of Israel.

Regarding the claims about the Jewish tradition it must be said that Brugger states that: "Scholars generally agree that by the end of the Second Temple period there was a widespread reluctance in Israel to impose the death penalty." (p. 62), but, as we saw above, the rabbinical passages on which Brugger relies and which report the views of rabbis Tarfon and Akiva reported a minority opinion that aroused the irony of other rabbis, so the Jewish courts continued to impose death sentences throughout the Middle Ages.

g, 2) Reflections on the patristic documentation offered by Brugger.

Brugger has indeed done a remarkable work for some aspects of the patristic documentation but his is not a completely complete work, as I fear no work so far, eg he does not quote s. Ottato di Milevi who says various things in support of the legitimacy of the death penalty. I am not aware that any patrologist or group of patrologists has addressed the question of the death penalty in the Fathers in a complete and exhaustive manner. But the fundamental lines have now emerged and in reality they had already emerged in ancient times ... for this reason the Magisterium had clearly stated that the death penalty is lawful in some cases. However, Brugger did a very thorough work regarding various Fathers and his conclusion is precisely that: “For the Fathers of the early Church, the authority of the state to kill malefactors is taken for granted. Opinions differed on whether Christians should hold offices whose responsibilities include the judging and carrying out of capital punishments — pre-Constantinian authors said they should not, those writing after ad 313 said they should — but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned. "[487]

For the early Church Fathers, led by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, the authority of the state to kill evildoers is taken for granted. Opinions differed as to whether Christians were to hold positions whose responsibilities included the judgment and execution of the death penalty - pre-Constantinian authors said they shouldn't, those writing after the 313 edict said they should - but the principled legitimacy of the punishment itself is never questioned.

Brugger clearly shows in his book the various affirmations of the Fathers on the question of the death penalty and shows precisely how they absolutely unanimously affirm the lawfulness of the death penalty. [488] "Among those Patristic writers ... we find unanimous agreement that civil authority, as guardian of the public good, has the right to inflict punishments on evildoers, including the punishment of death."[489] Among the patristic writers we find unanimous agreement on this: the civil authority, as guardian of the public good, has the right to inflict penalties on evildoers, including the death penalty.

Note: Fathers and Doctors of the Church have absolutely unanimously supported the death penalty! Regarding this unanimous consensus, it is necessary to remember what the First Vatican Council affirms “… no one should be allowed to interpret this Scripture…. against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. "[490] .

g, 3) Reflections on the affirmations of s. Teodoro Study on the death penalty.

Brugger also speaks of St. Teodoro Studita classifying him among those who were against the death penalty. In fact, Brugger writes that there are some exceptions to the development of consensus on the death penalty; the teachings of two clerics of the ninth century, s. Teodoro Studita and s. Nicholas I, they express, the patristic opposition to Christian participation in the bloodshed.[491] We have already examined the statements of s. Nicholas I and we will return to talk about them later.

Regarding the statements of St. Theodore must be kept in mind that, while this saint denied that force and sword could be used against heretics, St. Theophanes affirmed that not only was it necessary to use the sword but also that: those who oppose the use of force against "men who are absolutely impure in spirit and body and worship demons" are enemies of the Apostles, and therefore of the Church![492]

St. Theophanes explained that the Emperor Michael decreed the death penalty against the Paulicians "at the behest of the holy patriarch Nikeforos and other pious men"[493]

Theophanes claims that those who denied that the clergy had the right to resort to such measures as the death penalty to suppress heresy were against Holy Scripture in all respects, but only cites the example of Ananias and Sapphira to support this. affirmation. Due to the scarcity of sources we do not know what other passages were used to justify the death penalty in this case.[494]

St Theodore specifies his position (Ep. 455, PG 99: 1485B) stating that like St Simeon of the Marvelous Mountain he had recommended a monarch to take punitive measures against a nation that was massacring the Christian people, he too was then exhorting the 'Emperor to do the same that is to make war on the Scythians and the Arabs, who were killing the people of God. In the latter case the war was against the enemies, but in the case of the Paulicians the struggle was against the heretics who were subjects of the Empire.[495]

Regarding the case of Saint John the Fasting, Patriarch of Constantinople, Theodore denies that this saint ordered the magicians to be impaled, being of the opinion rather that he allowed it because they were murderers, and against them the authorities should not be prevented. civilians to practice Roman law and therefore the death penalty; s. Theodore quotes here the text of St. Paul (Rm 13,4): the authorities do not carry the sword in vain ... they are avengers of the one who does evil (Ep. 455, PG 99: 1485s)

So yes. Theodore says that crimes that have to do simply with the state, such as murder, must be punished with state penalties, including capital punishment, while crimes concerning the life of the Church must be punished with ecclesiastical penalties (Ep. 455, PG 99: 1485s). St. Theodore is therefore not against the death penalty, nor were the saints just mentioned ... [496]

St. Theodore, therefore, was in favor of the death penalty; he simply denied that heretics, particularly in the case of the Paulicians, should be punished with death. I remember that s. Theodore was deeply rooted in Tradition; for s. Theodore is not lawful for an Archbishop together with his associates to do what he wants, so that for the duration of his archbishopric a new evangelist, a new apostle, a legislator who affirms things different from Tradition! We have in fact, says St. Theodore, s. Paul the Apostle who states: if someone preaches a doctrine, or exhorts you to do something against what you have received, against what is prescribed by the canons of Catholic and local synods held at different times, he must not be received, or be counted in the number of the faithful and goes towards a terrible judgment indicated by the Apostle (cf. Galatians 1). (San Teodoro lo Studita, Epistle 24, PG 99, col. 987) The fidelity to the Tradition of s. Theodore, related to the affirmations of St. Simeon of the Wonderful Mountain, by s. John the Fasting, of Theophanes and of the others who with the latter advocated the death penalty, it is very important to affirm that evidently also in the East it was very clear that the Tradition affirmed, also based on Romans 13,4: XNUMX, that the penalty of death was lawful.

The position of s. Theodore, on the concrete case of the Paulicians, differed from that of St. Theophanes, s. Nikephoros and other pious men who affirmed the need to impose the death penalty on heretics[497], evidently on this point the Tradition had not yet been fixed with precision and s. Theodore felt free to be able to say his thought based on Scripture; the Tradition was fixed in the following centuries.

g, 4) Reflections on the papal and magisterial documentation offered by Brugger.

The papal and magisterial documentation appears limited and incomplete in Brugger's text; he does not cite some papal documents which further clarify their total acceptance of the legitimacy of the death penalty.

Brugger does not quote Fr. ex. Pope Simplicius who, in 478, recommended the emperor Zeno to put the assassins of the bishops to death; these sacrilegious killers, according to the Pontiff, are worthy of perishing by means of these torments, with such pains the Church and the Empire will find rest, with them divine favors will be attracted to the Empire. (Epistle XII see Bull., Appendix to t. 1, p. 221)

Brugger does not mention Pope Pelagius I who, in a letter to the Duke of Italy, affirms that we must not think that it is a sin to punish refractory bishops, in fact it is established by divine and human laws that the disorders of peace and the unity of the Church must be repressed by civil power, and this is the greatest service that can be rendered to religion.[498]

Brugger does not mention Honorius I who recognizes this power to impose capital punishment on community leaders and asks that the perpetrator of a rape receive the death penalty, that this punishment be not delayed, and that the greatest number of people be served.[499]

Brugger does not present the various statements with which Saint Gregory the Great, Pope, teaches the legitimacy of capital punishment in several of his letters, recognizing that serious crimes deserve such punishment. In one case, speaking of the violence inflicted on Bishop Janvier de Malaga, he says that: the law punishes the perpetrator of such an insult with the death penalty[500], in a letter to a queen[501], urges you to make reparation for the offenses committed against God by punishing adulterers, thieves and those responsible for other depraved acts for which this penalty is provided with the death penalty[502]  Brugger does not mention Urban II who, in a decree addressed to the bishop of Lucca, legitimized a death sentence not yet judicially pronounced; he does not call murder of those who, in the ardor of their zeal for their mother, the holy Church, have put the excommunicated to death, but asks that they receive adequate penance.[503]

Brugger quotes the statements of Nicholas I and s. Teodoro Studita who affirm that the Church has no sword… and Brugger states: “There are a few early exceptions to the developing consensus on capital punishment, and these deserve mention here. The teachings of two ninth-century clerics

still express the Patristic opposition to Christian participation in bloodshed. "[504] There are therefore some exceptions, according to Brugger, to the development of consensus on the death penalty, the teachings of two clerics of the ninth century, s. Teodoro Studita and s. Nicholas I, express, according to Brugger, the patristic opposition to Christian participation in the shedding of blood.

I underline that the affirmations of these two saints are not a real denial of the lawfulness of the death penalty, in fact: (1) s. Nicholas I, as seen, does not deny the lawfulness of the death penalty nor does he affirm that Christians cannot impose it but simply wants to temper the brutality of Bulgarian law at the time, (2) s. Theodore, as we have seen, equally does not absolutely deny the lawfulness of the death penalty, nor its infliction by Christians, but opposes the use of violence against heretics.

The letter of St. Nicholas I in response to the Bulgarians ("Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum", PL 119, 978-1016) of the year 866 which addresses a large number of dogmatic and canonical questions and reaffirms the legitimacy of the death penalty is presented by Brugger inaccurately in some pages of his work[505], that is, as if he absolutely excluded the death penalty, which is not true, in fact, among other things, the Pontiff affirms that: as for those who have slaughtered their relative it is good that the respectable laws find their application but if the guilty they have taken refuge in the church, are snatched from the death promised by the laws. [506] Obviously this means that respectable laws provided for the death penalty for those who killed their blood relatives and Pope Nicholas accepted that they would apply, only asking that the guilty be spared death if they took refuge in church. St. Nicholas was not radically opposed, therefore, to the death penalty! ... And he did not speak radically against the death penalty ... how could he do it, on the other hand, if Rm 13, 4, as we have seen, is very clear in granting rulers the right to kill the wicked, as clearly stated by St. Innocent I? St. Nicholas, as we saw, obviously knew very well that in those days the death penalty was imposed in all Christian states and did not produce documents to ban it everywhere… so it is evident that he accepted this penalty.

Pope Innocent III in 1199, with the Decretale Vergentis[507] developed a parallel between heretics and guilty of treason, and wrote that according to the legitimate sanctions the guilty of treason are punished with death, even more the heretics who offend Jesus Christ must be separated from our head which is Christ ... therefore hit capital punishment. Brugger does not speak of this Decretale Vergentis.

The Pontiff himself will further reaffirm the legitimacy of this capital punishment by ordering the disciples of Pietro Valdo, who were seeking reconciliation with the Church, to explicitly accept the Catholic doctrine on the lawfulness of the death penalty: "De potestate saeculari asserimus, quod sine sin mortali potest iudicium sanguinis exercere, dummodo ad inferendam vindictam non hatred, sed iudicio, not incaute, sed consulte procedat "[508]. Which essentially means the following: the secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise the judgment of blood, that is to impose the death penalty, provided that in inflicting the penalty it proceeds not out of hatred, but with good reason, with prudence, without recklessness. The fact that Innocent III included the lawfulness of the death penalty among the truths that the Waldensians had to expressly believe in order to enter the communion of the Catholic Church shows that this truth was evidently considered an important part of the Church's doctrine.

Brugger only refers to the Popes Lucius III [509]  Innocent III[510], Gregory IX [511] and Boniface VIII[512] they adopted decretals, passed into universal legislation, which provided for the heretic to be placed in the power of the secular arm for punishment; the punishment they indicated for this crime was the death penalty for cremation[513]. Brugger does not mention Boniface VIII who came to threaten to sanction the temporal authorities who did not proceed without delay (indilando) to the execution of the heretics. The Pontiff himself decided to abandon the assassins of Cardinals to the secular arm so that these assassins would be punished with death [514].

The Furatur decree[515], paraphrasing the Exodus (21, 16), he affirms that anyone found guilty of a kidnapping and who sold the kidnapped person is put to death.[516]

Brugger does not say that in 1215, during the IV Lateran Council, the canon Excommunicamus was adopted, which ordered the abandonment of heretics, already condemned, "to the secular powers" (Const. 3) ... with consequent imposition of the death penalty (COD p . 233 ff.) And Brugger does not say that this text of the Council will pass into the Decretals of Gregory IX, the official collection of the laws of the Church[517]

Brugger does not say that a resolution equal to that of the IV Lateran Council will be adopted by the Council of Constance (ecumenical XVI) against the wyclifites (cf. COD pp. 414ss) and the Hussites (cf. COD p. 429, condemnation at the stake of Hus ), the Council of Constance in the text just cited decrees the condemnation to the stake of the heretic Hus.

Brugger does not say that among the sentences condemned by the Council of Constance in the doctrine of Wyclif there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of heretics to the secular arm in fact he affirms that God cannot approve that one is civilly judged or civilly condemned ( see COD p. 425, n.44)

Brugger does not say that among the sentences of Hus condemned by the Council of Constance there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of the heretics to the secular arm (cfr. COD p. 430, n.14)

I remember that: "Martin V, elected Pope in Constance in 1417, in the bull Inter cunctas of 22 February 1418, recognized the ecumenical nature of the Council of Constance and all that it had decided, albeit with the generically restrictive formula:" fidei et salutem animarum "."[518]

Brugger does not say that Pope Martin V, in 1418, drafted a questionnaire to examine the doctrine professed by people suspected of wyclifism and hussism, in it he explicitly asked the person if he believed in the possibility for prelates to appeal to the secular arm[519] … And therefore to have the death penalty inflicted. Such a question is extremely significant of the importance of this question within Catholic doctrine; if it were not important, and very important, it certainly would not have been given to these people to recognize their catholicity.

Brugger does not say that Leo X gave the governor of the city the power to take action against criminals and also to impose the death penalty on them. ("Etsi pro", 1514, Bull., T. 5, p. 615) ... Brugger does not say that Julius III provided for the death penalty for the holders of unpurged copies of the Talmud of their blasphemies against Christ ("Cum sicut" , 1554, Bull., T. 6, p. 482) ... Brugger does not say that Paul IV foreseen it for the proxies (“Volens seleeribus”, 1558, Bull., T. 6, p. 538.) etc. ; Cyrille Dounot in her article[520] he cites various other crimes which, on the basis of papal rulings, provided for the death penalty.

Brugger says that Leo X, in 1520, also included this among Luther's errors: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."[521]  but it seems significant to me to underline that the error for which Luther denies that the death penalty can be inflicted for heresy, falls within the errors indicated by Leo X in this way:

we have seen that these same errors or articles are not Catholic, and should not be believed as such, but that they are contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and to Tradition, above all to the true and common interpretation of the divine Scriptures ... in fact it clearly derives from the same errors or from some that the same Church, which is governed by the Holy Spirit, errs and has always erred.[522]

The Roman Catechism, as Brugger also says, taught the lawfulness of the death penalty [523] ... but I think it is important to note that practically no one questioned this point of doctrine among Catholics ... it was established that Catholic doctrine contained the lawfulness of the death penalty. The holy Doctors peacefully accepted these claims and developed them, it was evident to them that the Bible-based Tradition clearly stated that the death penalty was lawful in some cases.

Likewise, the Major Catechism of Saint Pius X (third part, n. 413) taught the lawfulness of this penalty: “413 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill one's neighbor? A. It is lawful to kill one's neighbor when one is fighting in a just war, when one executes by order of the supreme authority the sentence of death under penalty of some crime; and finally when it comes to the necessary and legitimate defense of life against an unjust aggressor. "... and practically no one raised questions on this point of doctrine among Catholics ... it was established that Catholic doctrine contained the lawfulness of the death penalty, it was evident that the Bible-based Tradition clearly stated that the death penalty was lawful in some cases.

Pope Leo XIII, as Brugger also says, wrote in "Pastoralis Officii", an encyclical letter of 1881: "It is well established that both divine laws, both the one that was proposed with the light of reason, and the one that was promulgated with divinely inspired writings prohibit anyone, in the most absolute way, from killing or injuring a man in the absence of a just public reason, unless he is forced to do so by the need to defend his life. "[524] … And practically no one questioned this point of doctrine among Catholics… it was established that Catholic doctrine contained the lawfulness of the death penalty… it was evident that the Bible-based Tradition clearly stated that the death penalty was lawful in some cases.

I also point out that until 1870 capital punishments were carried out in the Papal State, which obviously indicates that the doctrine of the lawfulness of the death penalty was perfectly accepted by the Supreme Pontiffs and no one questioned this point of doctrine among Catholics ... it was established that Catholic doctrine contained the lawfulness of the death penalty… it was evident that the Bible-based Tradition clearly stated that the death penalty was lawful in some cases. Dunot writes that capital punishment was normally applied in the Papal State and the Criminal Code of the Holy See provided for the death penalty until 1962 for anyone who tried to kill the Pope.[525]

Obviously all this was done in the absolute certainty that this punishment was legitimate according to the Law of God… it was evident that the Bible-based Tradition clearly stated that the death penalty was lawful in some cases; this evidence persisted for himself. John Paul II and for Benedict XVI ... this evidence remains despite the errors of Pope Francis ...

g, 5) Reflections on Brugger's critique of the affirmations of s. Thomas Aquinas.

Brugger develops a critique of St. Thomas a little in the line of Blazquez, which we saw above. The criticism of him is intended to go beyond the traditional view that s. Thomas presents well to arrive at a new doctrine that the death penalty is something inherently evil.

However Brugger tries to "dismantle" the Thomist statements in an incorrect way, in fact, Brugger does not realize that s. Thomas is above all a believer, a theologian and he is also a great philosopher.

St. Thomas bases his affirmations on the death penalty, at the theological level, on Tradition and Scripture.

In the Somma contra Gentiles s. Thomas develops a philosophical apologetic discourse and also at this level, within a broad vision of God and creation, the legitimacy of the death penalty is presented on a philosophical and rational basis.

To really refute s. Thomas, Brugger should have done it, therefore on a double level, the theological and the philosophical one and he should have done it by working to great depth because s. Thomas is a very profound author, who follows biblical, supernatural wisdom, and combines it wonderfully with natural, philosophical wisdom, taking up great philosophers.

Brugger doesn't appear to have made this kind of double rebuttal.

I am not aware that the statements of St. Thomas who justify the lawfulness of the death penalty; I am not even aware that the philosophical statements of St. Thomas who justify the lawfulness of this penalty.

Brugger challenges St. Thomas without inserting them well into the frame of reference of the s. Doctor.

Brugger does not seem to realize, for example, that when he is. Thomas speaks of the man who loses his dignity when he sins is developing a discourse rooted in the Bible, as the saint himself says (cf. II-II q. 64 a. 2 ad 3) reporting two biblical passages, one from Psalm 48 v. 21 and the other from Proverbs, chap. 11 v. 29 ...

It should also be specified that there is an essential dignity that is not lost with sin, because the essence remains, but there is an effective, actual dignity that is lost with sin: the divine image always remains in man, even in the human being. hell, but the divine likeness, and the dignity connected to it, is lost with grave sin ... grave sin makes us unworthy of Heaven ... and of receiving the Eucharist as St. Thomas: “Ad quartam quaestionem dicendum, quod in indigne manducante est duo peccata to consider; scilicet peccatum quo indignus redditur ad manducandum, et peccatum quo indigne manducat. "(Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 9 q. 1 a. 3 qc. 4 co.) ... in this line certain sins make unworthy to live in relationship with the community to which one belongs and therefore such sins make the death penalty on the part of the community lawful. A man who is a real danger to a community because of his murderous violence is unworthy, in this line, to live.

More generally the affirmations of S. Thomas according to which human life, considered in itself, is absolutely inviolable (II-II q. 64 a. 6) should be understood by referring to the Thomist doctrine and more particularly to what s. Thomas says in a.1 and 2 of the same question 64 where he states: “No one sins by the fact that he uses a being for the purpose for which he was created. ... in the hierarchy of beings the less perfect ones are made for the more perfect ones " [526]“… The less perfect things are ordered to the perfect ones. Now any part is ordered to the whole as that which is less perfect is ordered to a perfect being. Therefore the part is by nature subordinate to the whole. "[527] … As a part is to the whole, so every man is to the whole community; therefore man is ordered to the community and subordinated to it as the part is ordered and subordinated to the whole, so if a man is dangerous with his sins for the community, it is good to suppress him, for the true good of the whole of which the man is part.[528]

A human life, considered in itself, is absolutely inviolable but can be suppressed for its sins which cause damage to the community (cf. II-II q. 64 a.2 and a. 6).

Man is therefore ordained to the community but above all, says St. Thomas in I, q. 1 a. 1 man is ordained to God; man is first ordained to God and then to the community!

The community can only suppress him if it is harmful to it for his sins; the community cannot kill man for himself, human life, considered in itself, is absolutely inviolable.

Faced with the affirmation of those who say: "... killing a man is in itself an evil ... Therefore in no way is it lawful to kill a sinner."[529] s. Thomas, following the Bible, replies: “With sin man abandons the order of reason ... degenerating in some way into the enslavement of beasts, which implies subordination to the advantage of others. Thus, in fact, we read in Scripture: "Not having understood his dignity, man descended to the level of senseless horses, and became similar to them" ... Therefore ... killing a man who sins can be good, as killing a beast: in fact a bad man ... is ... more harmful than a beast. "[530]

The community can suppress man only if he is harmful to it for his sins; the community cannot kill man for himself but only insofar as he damages it with his sins!

St. Thomas himself therefore, in art. 2, just seen, makes it clear in advance what he means in art. 6 of the same question where he states: "Considered in himself no man can be killed lawfully: because in everyone, even if a sinner, we must love nature, which was created by God, and which is destroyed by killing."[531]

Taking into account that man is ordained to God and to the community, and in the light of divine truth, the community cannot kill man for himself but can only kill him because with his sins he damages it!

In this line s. Thomas states: "... the killing of the guilty becomes lawful ... in view of the common good, which sin compromises" [532]

Here I want to underline some statements of s. Tommaso just seen:

- "... in the hierarchy of beings the less perfect ones are made for the more perfect ones" [533]

- “… any part is ordered to the whole as what is less perfect is ordered to a perfect being. Therefore the part is by nature subordinate to the whole. … And therefore if a man with his sins is dangerous and disruptive for the community, it is praiseworthy and healthy to suppress him, for the preservation of the common good; in fact, as St. Paul says: "A little ferment can corrupt the whole mass". " [534]

Man, therefore, is in a certain way, in the light of divine wisdom, for the community as the less perfect beings are for the most perfect (cf. II-II q. 64 a.1), every man is part of his community as a part is to the whole so every man is to the whole community; therefore man is, in the light of divine wisdom, ordered to the community and subordinate to it as the part is ordered and subordinated to the whole (cf. IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 co.) therefore if a man is dangerous with its sins for the community it is good to suppress, for the true good of the whole of which man is a part. Man can not be killed for himself but for his sins which cause harm to the community (cf. II-II q. 64 a. 6; II-II q. 64 a.2 ad. 3m).

In this line s. Thomas clearly states that only the legitimate leaders of the community have the power from God to inflict punishments and therefore to inflict the death penalty… for this reason no one else can intentionally kill someone legitimately. Everyone can certainly defend themselves and precisely therefore can, according to St. Thomas, to carry out acts that lead to the death of the unjust aggressor, such acts, however, are lawful to the extent that the actions with a double effect that precisely cause the death of someone are lawful (cfr. II-II q. 64 a.7).

I remember that, according to sound doctrine, it is legitimate to carry out an action with a double effect which also has bad effects when, more precisely, the following conditions are met:

a) "The act carried out must be good in itself, or at least indifferent."[535]

b) The good effect must be achieved immediately and not through the bad one. The direct effect of the intervention must be the positive one and the negative one must be indirect (cf. HB Merkelbach in “Summa Theologiae Moralis” Brugis 1959, t.1, p. 166).

c) The person must have a right intention and therefore this intention must be oriented to the good effect and not to the bad one, otherwise the evil would be voluntary in itself or at least it would be wanted, therefore it is also required that there is no immediate danger of to allow evil or to approve it (see B. Merkelbach in “Summa Theologiae Moralis” Brugis 1959, t.1, p. 167).

d) There must be a reason for establishing the cause that produces the double effect and this reason must be proportionately serious, that is, there must be proportionality between the good that is intended and the evil that is tolerated: p. ex. it is not morally justified to put in place a procedure that also has the effect of abortion in order to avoid slight disturbances (see B. Merkelbach in “Summa Theologiae Moralis” Brugis 1959, t.1, p. 166).

So, according to s. Thomas, everyone can certainly defend himself and precisely therefore he can perform acts that lead to the death of the unjust aggressor, but such acts are lawful to the extent that actions with a double effect are lawful, according to some "probatus auctor" such as De Lugo and Waffelaert, on the other hand, the direct killing of an unjust aggressor is also lawful as long as it is chosen as a means and not as an end[536]; the death penalty, however, for all these perpetrators can only be imposed by the legitimate authority that heads the community.

g, 6) Reflections on the irreformability of Catholic doctrine which affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty.

Brugger develops a long and interesting discussion on the irreformability of a doctrine within Catholic teaching and in particular on the irreformability of the doctrine that affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty.

Obviously the limited and largely incomplete documentation that Brugger has presented, even if it allows him to make some important statements, prevents him from fully realizing the deep rootedness of the doctrine of the lawfulness of the death penalty in Tradition.

As emerges from what has been said and seen above:

- the death penalty is indicated as lawful in the OT and is clearly established to punish some crimes, as the Jewish judicial tradition also attests;

- the practice of the death penalty was considered legitimate by the authors of the New Testament as Brugger himself said "The New Testament has little to say directly about the death penalty, but there can be hardly any doubt that the practice was considered legitimate by New Testament authors. "[537]chapter 13 of the letter to the Romans has particular importance in this line;

-for the Fathers of the early Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, the authority of the state to kill evildoers is taken for granted, as Brugger himself says[538] ;

-the words of s. Innocent I who we saw above interpret with absolute certainty Rm 13,4 in the sense of the lawfulness of the death penalty and indicate a clear Tradition in this sense;

- there is a clear Tradition, favorable to the death penalty, in the West and also in the East that can be clearly seen even in the time of St. Theodore Studita and of the Patriarch Nicephorus and which is not revoked but also confirmed by s. Nicholas I and other Popes, before and after him;

-the profession of faith requested by Innocent III of the Waldensians contains a clear reference to the lawfulness of the death penalty ... and it is indeed a Catholic profession of faith[539];

-The IV Lateran Council (XII Ecumenical), with the canon Excommunicamus, which ordered the abandonment of heretics condemned "to secular powers" (Const. 3) with consequent imposition of the death penalty (COD p. 233 ff.) contains a clear reference to the lawfulness of the death penalty;

-The Council of Constance (ecumenical XVI) also contains a clear reference to the lawfulness of the death penalty in the resolutions against the Wyclifites (cf. COD pp. 414ss) and the Hussites (cf. COD p. 429, condemnation to the stake of Hus) ;

- among the sentences condemned by the Council of Constance in the doctrine of Wicleff there is the one for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of heretics to the secular arm in fact he affirms that God cannot approve that one is civilly judged or civilly condemned (cf. COD p. 425, n.44)

- among the sentences condemned in the doctrine of Hus by the Council of Constance there is that for which this heretic shows to oppose the handing over of the heretics to the secular arm (cfr. COD p. 430, n.14);

- the questionnaire that Pope Martin V wrote in 1418 to examine the doctrine professed by people suspected of wyclifism and hussism, in which the person was explicitly asked if he believed in the possibility for prelates to appeal to the secular arm[540] and therefore to have the death penalty inflicted obviously implies the lawfulness of this penalty;

-the affirmations of Leo X, who, as we have seen, in 1520, among Luther's errors also included this: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit".[541] … Obviously imply the lawfulness of the death penalty;

- the luminous and very clear affirmations of the Doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas, s. Bonaventure, s. Gregory the Great, s. Roberto Bellarmino, s. Pietro Canisio, s. Alfonso de 'Liguori etc. they are clear indications of the legitimacy of the death penalty and of the justice it embodies when used according to God's will;

- in the light of what we have seen so far, the truth that it is absolutely forbidden for anyone to kill or injure a man in the absence of a just public reason, unless forced by the need to defend one's life: "It is well established that both divine laws, both the one that has been proposed with the light of reason, and the one that has been promulgated with the divinely inspired writings, absolutely forbid anyone from killing or injuring a man in the absence of a just public reason, unless forced by the need to defend his life. "[542] which means that the law of God, divinely revealed, considers the death penalty lawful in some cases and that the lawfulness of this penalty is a clearly written truth also in the natural law;

-H. As we have seen, I wrote, very acutely, that all theologians, in order to demonstrate the lawfulness of the death penalty on the basis of the natural law, usually take as an argument the general consensus of all nations in believing that it is just and therefore in imposing this penalty.[543]; the lawfulness of the death penalty is, therefore, a truth proclaimed by the natural law and by the positive divine law… and reaffirmed by the Church!

- in line with what has been said so far, it should be noted that up to 1870 the Pontifical State imposed the death penalty in the absolute doctrinal certainty that it is lawful to impose the death penalty in some cases;

- in line with what has been said up to now, Pius XII has repeatedly reaffirmed the lawfulness of this penalty and John Paul II likewise reaffirmed this doctrine;

- the doctrine that affirms the lawfulness of the death penalty is therefore declared by the Church as part of the natural law, and more precisely as part of legitimate defense;

-this doctrine is inextricably linked to Holy Scripture and to St. Tradition and is clearly approved by them, in fact it has been universally accepted by all practically without opposition from the beginning of the Church as a clear will of God emerging from his Word, it has been proposed several times, therefore, as part of the Catholic doctrine necessary to be accepted for be a member of the Catholic Church.

Quite clearly it seems to me that the lawfulness of the death penalty must therefore be placed among the irreformable doctrines.

More precisely, this irreformability emerges from natural law and therefore from a correct exercise of reason, as s. Thomas in "Sum against the Gentiles"[544] and along this line this legitimacy has always been recognized and in all peoples. Through the positive divine law God confirmed, resumed and clarified what the correct exercise of reason had already affirmed. Biblical affirmations and then those of the Fathers, Doctors and the Magisterium precisely specify this truth already rooted in the human mentality and as a whole indicate precisely that this truth is indelible from sound doctrine.

The reasons brought by the current Pope against this truth therefore appear, as we have also seen, unable to always declare this penalty inadmissible.

The Pope is not superior to the Word of God and to Tradition… and he cannot change the natural law… as explained by St. John Paul II "8. The Roman Pontiff ... has the "sacra potestas" to teach the truth of the Gospel, administer the sacraments and pastorally govern the Church in the name and with the authority of Christ, but this power does not include in itself any power over the divine natural or positive law . "[545] The Pope has no power over the natural or positive divine law, and in particular he cannot erase what appears clearly indelible.

I conclude by recalling that s. Paul states: "We have no power against the truth, but for the truth." (2 Cor. 13,8) The ministers of God, including the Pope, have no power against the Truth, their power is only to uphold the Truth. !

God intervenes so that the Truth regarding the lawfulness of the death penalty is clearly reaffirmed by the Pope and by all Catholic prelates!

7) Concluding clarifications of chap. VI: the Pope is perverting and not developing sound doctrine.

Taking up what has just been said and what we saw, above, in the concluding clarifications of the third chapter and in the first two chapters and avoiding proposing to you all the doctrinal texts of the of the Pope, in the moral sphere, examined in this chapter do not appear to be a development of sound doctrine but a change in it, in fact, they do not appear in the sense of the continuity of principles, they do not develop as a logical consequence and do not realize a preservative influence of the in the past, they are simply a betrayal of sound doctrine ... they betray fundamental doctrines, especially in the moral sphere, doctrines clearly connected to Holy Scripture and always reaffirmed by Tradition and natural law ...

This betrayal, it should be noted, is not an evolution but a change, in fact it was defined by Bergoglio's own collaborators: "paradigm change". Although the Pope and some of his collaborators try to pass his work as an evolution of sound doctrine and as pure Thomistic doctrine, it is a radical change, a true perversion of sound doctrine and is also in clear opposition to the doctrine of the s. Doctor of Aquino, the same Prelates close to the Pope speak of it, indicating it as a "paradigm shift".

With this "paradigm shift", Pope Francis:

1) on the one hand, as seen in the previous chapters, it makes the revealed Law disappear on an essential point of morality and sets aside the doctrine according to which the negative norms of the divine law are obligatory always and in every circumstance, affirms that a Christian moral conscience can believe with sincerity and honesty and discover with a certain moral certainty that God allows it to do what he himself absolutely forbids, always and without exception, moreover, it practically opens the doors to adultery, contraception and practiced homosexuality;

2) on the other hand, as seen in this chapter, it raises the inadmissibility of the death penalty as a doctrine of the Church, in the line of a false order of charity ... contrary to what the Bible says, the two-thousand-year Magisterium and practically the whole Tradition as well as s. Thomas Aquinas.

That is, the current Pope invents, against Tradition and the Bible, new absolute moral laws and on the other practically cancels laws that Tradition and the Bible clearly affirm

The professor. Echeverria developing a reflection on the Pope's affirmations about the death penalty, a reflection based on the affirmations of St. Vincenzo di Lerino on the progress and perversion of doctrine rightly concludes "... Clearly, Francis's position involves change and not progress." (E. Echeverria "Pope Francis, the Lérinian legacy of Vatican II, and capital punishment" Catholic World Report, 15.10.2017 .2017 https://www.catholicworldreport.com/10/15/18.12.2018/pope-francis-the-lerinian-legacy-of-vatican-ii-and-capital-punishment/) Pope Francis' position on the death penalty it is a change, that is, a perversion of sound doctrine. Rightly therefore GW Rutler (George William Rutler, "Pope Francis' new comments on the death penalty are incoherent and dangerous" Catholic World Report 2018 https://www.catholicworldreport.com/12/18/XNUMX/pope-francis- new-comments-on-the-death-penalty-are-incoherent-and-dangerous /) said that Pope Francis' teaching about the death penalty is in contradiction with the Tradition of the Church; it is a question of change, that is, of perversion, of sound doctrine, as clearly emerges by studying the classic criteria for the authentic development of sound doctrine, established by s. John Henry Newman; furthermore, since the lawfulness of capital punishment is part of the natural law, once rejected as intrinsically wrong such lawfulness opens the doors because the same could happen for any aspect of the natural law. The Vatican, concludes Rutler, has become a theological Chernobyl ...

God intervene quickly to restore the holy Truth at all levels in his Church and among his Prelates.

May God who is Light arise and the darkness of error be dispersed.

May the glorious Mother of God intercede for us, who annihilates heretical doctrines, crushes the power of error and unmasks the snare of idols (cf. Hymn Akathistos, vv. 111-112; ed. GG Meersseman, Der Hymnos Akathistos im Abendland, vol. I, Universitatsverlag, Freiburg Schw. 1958, p. 114), and which since ancient times has been invoked by the Christian people "in" defense "of the faith". (See "Masses of the Blessed Virgin Mary", Holy Mass "Virgin Mary support and defense of our faith". Https://www.maranatha.it/MessaleBVM/bvm35page.htm)

Notes.

[1]"Relatio Finalis of the Synod of Bishops to the Holy Father Francis" (24 October 2015), 24.10.2015, www.vatican.va, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2015/ 10/24/0816 / 01825.html

[2]Pope Francis, "Address to the Delegation of the International Association of Criminal Law" 23.10.2014 http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa-francesco_20141023_associazione-internazionale-diritto- criminal.html

[3]Pope Francis, "Video message to the VI Congress against the death penalty", 21.6.2016, www.vatican.va,

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/messages/pont-messages/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160621_videomessaggio-vi-congresso-contro-pena-di-morte.html

[4]Francesco, "Angelus" of 21.2.2016, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/angelus/2016/documents/papa-francesco_angelus_20160221.html

[5]Francesco “Discourse of the s. Father Francesco to the participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization ", Wednesday, 11 October 2017, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2017 /october/documents/papa-francesco_20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html

[6]Francesco "Letter to the President of the International Commission against the death penalty", 20 March 2015 www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150320_lettera- death-penalty.html

[7]Francesco “Speech of the s. Father Francesco to the participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, "Wednesday, 11 October 2017, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2017 /october/documents/papa-francesco_20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html

[8]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “New redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty "- Rescriptum" ex Audentia SS.mi ", 02.08.2018, www.vatican.va, http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico /2018/08/02/0556/01209.html#it

[9]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Letter to the Bishops regarding the new redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty ", 02.08.2018, www.vatican.va, http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556/ 01210.html

[10]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Letter to the Bishops regarding the new redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty ", 02.08.2018, www.vatican.va, http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556/ 01210.html

[11]Francesco "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", of 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents/ pope-francis_20181217_commission-counter-death-penalty.html

[12]Francesco "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", of 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents/ pope-francis_20181217_commission-counter-death-penalty.html

[13]Francesco "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", of 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents/ pope-francis_20181217_commission-counter-death-penalty.html

[14]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment" First Things April, 2001 https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-capital-punishment) the Italian translation of this article can be found on various sites Catholics ("Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007, https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[15]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007 https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[16]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 60

[17]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 62

[18]John Paul II Encyclical Letter “Evangelium Vitae”, 25.3.1995, n. 9, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[19]St. Ambrose "De Cain et Abel" quoted in John Paul II "Evangelium Vitae" n. 9

[20]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX, https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[21]See "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents /papa-francesco_20181217_commissione-contropena-dimorte.html

[22]Cf. “The Bible commented by the Fathers. New Testament ”New City, Rome 2017, 4/1, p. 375; G. Ricciotti "Life of Christ", Mondadori, 2011, III reprint pp. 463s

[23]See "Letter 153", 9 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/lettere/index2.htm

[24]See s. Augustine, “Homily 33”, n. 4, www.augustinus.it, https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/commento_vsg/omelia_033.htm

[25]See s. Augustine, Homily 33, n. 4 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/commento_vsg/omelia_033.htm

[26]H. Lio "Poena mortis" in "Dictionarium morale et canonicum", Officuum Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 678

[27]"Metonimia" in Vocabolario online, www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/metonimia/

[28]"Μάχαιρα" in Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database, biblehub.com,

https://biblehub.com/greek/3162.htm

[29]Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer's NT Commentary, “Romans” 13,4 at biblehub.com, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/romans/13.htm

[30]Innocent I, “Letter to Exsuperius” of 20.2.405; PL 20, 498-502; for the precise translation see A. di Berardino, edited by, “The canons of the ancient church councils”. vol. II. “The Latin councils. Decree them. Roman Councils. Canons of Serdica ”, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 2008, p. 117

[31]See "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission against the Death Penalty", 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents /papa-francesco_20181217_commissione-contropena-dimorte.html

[32]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église ”Revue Catholica 16.10.2018

[33]M. Sales “The New Testament commented by Fr. Marco Sales ”Edd. LICET and Marietti, Turin, 1914, v. II p. 540s

[34]Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", 2.4.2004, n. 380 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_it.html#a)%20La%20signoria%20di%20Dio

[35]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[36]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[37]See "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents /papa-francesco_20181217_commissione-contropena-dimorte.html

[38]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[39]See E. Feser, J. Bessette, “By Man Shall His Blood be Shed. A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment ”Ignatius, San Francisco, 2017, cap. 2, paragraph entitled "Capital punishment in Scripture"

[40]Ch. Journet, “L'Église du Verbe incarné”, t. 1, La hiérarchie apostolique, Saint-Maurice, éditions Saint-Augustin, 1998, p. 575; quoted in Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[41]Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", 2.4.2004 ,, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott- soc_it.html # a)% 20The% 20signoria% 20of% 20God

[42]St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" 25.5.1995 n. 40s, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[43]St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" 25.5.1995 n. 56, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[44]Cf Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 2263-2269; cf Catechism of the Council of Trent III, 327-332.) "(St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter" Evangelium Vitae "25.5.1995 n. 55, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[45]St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" 25.5.1995 n. 55, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[46]Cf S. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 64, a. 7; S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio, Theologia moralis, l. III, tr. 4, c. 1, dub. 3; St. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" 25.5.1995 n. 55, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[47]See "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents /papa-francesco_20181217_commissione-contropena-dimorte.html

[48]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[49]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74

[50]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74-95

[51]Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Filius", c. 2: Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3007

[52]Hernán Judge "Argumentos racionales y bíblicos sobre la pena de muerte en la patrística" in Teología y Vida, Vol. LII (2011), 307-322 https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0049 -34492011000100017

[53]See E. Christian Brugger "Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition", University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 84

[54]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 75

[55]In “Fathers of the Church,” Translated by Thomas Falls. New York: Christian Heritage, 1948, vol. 6; PG. 6, col. 330s, 342, 431

[56]In “Ante-Nicene Fathers”, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 2, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885

[57]In “Ante-Nicene Fathers”, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885 p. 517, 552; PG 7, 1095ss; 1187

[58]In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 85. Translated by John Ferguson. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991, pp. 149-50; PG. 8, 918-922

[59]In "Ante-Nicene Fathers", ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885, vol. 2, p. 438; PG. 8, 1322ss

[60]In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 23. Translated by Simon P. Wood. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1954 pp. 58, 63; 233-237; PG. 8, 326-340; 612-618

[61]In "Ante-Nicene Fathers", ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 3, p. 72; PL 1,686

[62]In “Ante-Nicene Fathers”, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 3, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885, p. 73; PL 1,689s

[63]In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 40.Translated by Edwin A. Quain, SJ New York: Fathers of the Church, 1959; PL 1,91ss)

[64]In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 40. Translated by Rudolph Arbesmann, OSA New York: “Fathers of the Church”, 1959, p. 90; PL 1,651s

[65]"Ante-Nicene Fathers", ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 3, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885 p. 647; PL. 2,150

[66]In "Fathers of the Church" vol. 10. Translated by Edwin A. Quain, SJ Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950, p. 302; PL. 2,745ss

[67]In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 10. Translated by Emily J. Daly, CSJ Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950, p. 19; PL 1, 284ss

[68]In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 51. Translated by Rose B. Female. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964, p. 194; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vindobonae 1868 v. III. pars I p. 691ss https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptoru16wissgoog/page/n889/mode/2up?view=theater); "Ad Demetrianum", ch. 13 (In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 36. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. New York: "Fathers of the Church", 1958, p. 179; PL 4, 554

[69]In "Fathers of the Church", vol. 10. Translated by R. Arbesmann. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950, p. 387; PL 3,333-335

[70]"Ante-Nicene Fathers", ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 7, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886, p. 187, PL 6, 705-713; cf. "Epitome Divinarum Institutionum" 59 (64)

[71]"Ante-Nicene Fathers", ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 7, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886, no. 64, par. 2, p. 249; PL 6, 1067ss

[72]"Ante-Nicene Fathers", ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 7, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886, p. 273; PL 7, 126ss

[73]St. Irenaeus of Lyons, “Adversus Haereses” 5, 24, 1 quoted in Hernán Giudice “Argumentos racionales y bíblicos sobre la pena de muerte en la patrística” in Teología y Vida, Vol. LII (2011), 307-322 https: //scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0049-34492011000100017; cf. also s. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses 4, 36

[74]“Contra Celsum”, trans. Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953, bk. 8, ch. 65, p. 501; PG 11,1614

[75]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 81

[76]Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, bk. 1, ch. 27, par. 171 (FOC, vol. 85, p. 149), PG 8, 918-921

[77]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 79

[78]See "De duodecim abusionibus saeculi", PL 4 col. 877-878, IX https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=M0rUVSsdr5IC&hl=it&pg=GBS.PA877

[79]See “Epistola ad Fortunatum de Exhortatione Martyrii”, PL 4, col. 658ss, V, https://books.google.it/books?id=M0rUVSsdr5IC&redir_esc=y

[80]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église ”Revue Catholica 16.10.2018

[81]See “Lactance, Epitome des Institutions Divines, trans. Michel Perrin (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1987

[82]Salvatore Sciortino, “The indices in the extra-ordinary criminal process” in “Iuris Antiqui Historia. An international Journal on ancient law "3. 2011 cfr. FM Cappello, p. 60; cf. A. Levi "Italian Encyclopedia (1931)" www.treccani.it, https://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/delazione_%28Encyclopedia-Italiana%29/

[83]FM Cappello, A. Levi "Italian Encyclopedia (1931)" www.treccani.it, https://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/delazione_%28Encyclopedia-Italiana%29/

[84]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 75

[85]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[86]See “Epist. Ad Studium ”PL t. XVI, col. 1040 A, cit. in H. Lio "Poena mortis" in "Dictionarium morale et canonicum", Officium Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 678

[87]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[88]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[89]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 85s

[90]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 86

[91]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 87

[92]Hernán Judge "Argumentos racionales y bíblicos sobre la pena de muerte en la patrística" in Teología y Vida, Vol. LII (2011), 307-322 https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0049 -34492011000100017

[93]Parsons, ed., “Saint Augustine Letters”, vol. 3, Letter 133, 3–6; Letter 134, 6-12; Letter 139 (2),

53–57; vol. 4, Letters 185, 166, 167; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Schaff, vol. 1, Letter 88

(7), 369-373.

[94]“Letter to Marcellin”, Letter 133, 1.2: PL 33, 509; translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/lettere/index2.htm

[95]“Augustine, The City of God, 32; The Sermons of Saint Augustine, ed. Rotelle, Sermon 32, 357, 358; The Letters of Saint Augustine in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Schaff, vol. 1, Letter 47 (5), 292, 294; Saint Augustine Letters, ed. Parsons, vol. 3, Letter 153 (17), 281-303; vol. 4, Letter 204 (5), 3–8; Augustine, DeOrdine in The “Fathers of the Church” (New York: CIMA Publishing, 1948) vol. 1, 287, 288. "(Thompson" Augustine and the Death Penalty "Augustinian Studies 40 (2) p. 197 note 58)

[96]St. Augustine “The order” l. 2 n.4 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/order/index2.htm

[97]Sant'Agostino, “The city of God”, l. I, no. 21, translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/cdd/index2.htm

[98]See "Letter 47", 5 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/lettere/index2.htm

[99]"Letter 153", 8 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/lettere/index2.ht

[100]See "Letter 153", 9 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/lettere/index2.htm

[101]"Letter 153", 19 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/lettere/index2.htm

[102]St. Augustine “The Lord's Sermon on the Mount” l. I n. 20,64 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/montagna/index2.htm

[103]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018, https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[104]“In Isaiam”, V, XIII; PL 24, 157 https://books.google.it/books?id=QqEOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=it&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[105]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 213 note 87

[106]See Anonyme “Les Constitutions apostoliques”, tome III Livres VII-VIII Éd. et trad. M. Metzger, Cerf, 1987 (Sources chrétiennes n. 336), p. 29, VII, 2, 8; text quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/)

[107]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[108]Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum” PL 187 https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y; https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de//decretum-gratiani/online/angebot; http://gratian.org/

[109]See f. J. Gaudemet, «Non occides (Ex 20, 13)», in A. Melloni et alii (dir.), “Christianity in history. Essays in honor of Giuseppe Alberigo ", Bologna, 1996, pp. 89-99.

[110]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[111]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 84

[112]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[113]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 94

[114]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 142s

[115]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 142s

[116]Y. Congar “Faith and theology”, pp. 163-164 quoted in A. Bellon "I am writing to you from St. Petersburg (Russia) and ask you how the Catholic Church explains the concept of the" consent of the fathers ", Dominican Friends 14.8.2017 https://www.amicidomenicani.it/le -I write-from-saint-petersburg-russia-and-wonder-how-the-catholic-church-explains-the-concept-of-the-consent-of-the-fathers /

[117]See E. Feser, J. Bessette, “By Man Shall His Blood be Shed. A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment ”Ignatius, San Francisco, 2017 ,, p. 119., cit. in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[118]See Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[119]See S. Bonaventura, Opera omnia, Vivès, 1868, t. 12, p. 250. "Sermo VI")) (See Cyrille Dounot "Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église" Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10 / 16 / une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale /

[120]“Commentary in IV libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. " L. III, q. XXXVII dub. V in S. Bonaventurae "Opera Omnia" ed. Quaracchi 1887, t. III, p. 834

[121]St. Thomas Aquinas "Sum against the Gentiles", lib. 3 chap. 146 n. 7 and 8 Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, Turin, First edition eBook: March 2013

[122]See II-II q. 25 a. 6 my translation taking up the translation made by Edizioni Studio Domenicano https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Seconda_Parte_2/index.html#273/z

[123]I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad. 9 translation taken from the "Somma Theologica" published online by the ESD publisher https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Seconda_Parte/index.html#1100/z

[124]See quotation from J.-Y. Pertin, J.-Y. Pertin, “Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand”, L'Harmattan, 2015, p. 309. The references of the letters are made on the edition of D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum", CCSL 140-140A, (l. XII, epistula 11) Tournai, 1982

[125]See quote from J.-Y. Pertin, J.-Y. Pertin, Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand, L'Harmattan, 2015 p. 286 The references of the letters are made on the edition of D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum”, CCSL 140-140A, (l. VIII, epistula19) Tournai, 1982, Tournai, 1982, cfr. Cyrille Dounot “A doctrinal solution of continuity. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[126]See quote from J.-Y. Pertin, J.-Y. Pertin, Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand, L'Harmattan, 2015 p. 291. The references of the letters are made on the edition of D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum", CCSL 140-140A (l. IX, epistula 86)

[127]S. Antonino “Summa Theologica” Veronae, MDCCXL, Ex Typographia Seminarii, p. 708, p. I, t. XIV, c. IV § IX https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=BMNiAAAAcAAJ&rdid=book-BMNiAAAAcAAJ&rdot=1

[128]"De controversiis christianae fidei, adversus hujus temporis haereticos", II, 3, 13, éd. Ingolstadt, 1591, t. 2, col. 653.

[129]“Relectiones theologiae”, De homicidio X, 16-18, éd. Lyon, 1557, t. 1er, p. 129, cit. in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[130]“Opus de triplici virtute theologica fide, spe & charitate”, XXIII, 1, 2, éd. Lyon, 1621, p. 374 cit. in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[131]See "Le grand catéchisme de Canisius", trans. AC Peltier, Vivès, 1857, t. 4, p. 69- 70, II, 1, 3, 9 cit. in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[132]See Roberti Bellarmini “De controversiis christianae fidei, adversus hujus temporis haereticos” Apud Societatem Minimam, Venetiis, 1599, t. 2, col. 475s, II, 3, 13 ,; cit. in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[133]S. Alfonso M. de Liguori "Education and practice for confessors", in "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Turin 1880 Vol. IX, pp. 162s

[134]Sant'Alfonso Maria de Liguori "Direct confessor for the confessions of the country people", in "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. IX, Turin 1880, p. 672

[135]St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

"Education to the people" in "Works of St. Alfonso Maria de Liguori", Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. VIII, Turin 1880 p. 936

[136]Innocent I, “Letter to Exsuperius” of 20.2.405; PL 20, 498-502; for the exact translation see A. di Berardino, edited by, “The canons of the ancient church councils. vol. II. The Latin councils. 1 Decretals. Roman Councils. Canons of Serdica ”, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 2008, p. 117

[137]PL 54, 680; Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.283.

[138]See Bull. t. 1, p. 221 (from now on B), Ep. XII, quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale /

[139]PL 69, 394. ep. THE; quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[140]PL 80, 481, Epistle XIII; JE 2025; Mansi X, 585, [34] (quoted in Cyrille Dounot "Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église" Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10 / 16 / une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale /

[141]See J.-Y. Pertin in “Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand, L'Harmattan, 2015, p. 293. The references of the letters are made on the edition of D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum”, CCSL 140-140A, Tournai, 1982, quotation from Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[142]See quotation made in J.-Y. Pertin, “Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand”, L'Harmattan, 2015, p. 286; cf. Cyrille Dounot “A doctrinal solution of continuity. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[143]See quotation made in J.-Y. Pertin, “Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand”, L'Harmattan, 2015, p. 291. Cf. Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[144]"Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum", PL 119, 978-1016) of the year 866 addresses a large number of dogmatic and canonical questions and reaffirms the legitimacy of the death penalty. (See Cyrille Dounot "Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église" Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de -continue-doctrinal /

[145]See “Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum”, PL 119, 978-1016, chap. 26 quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[146]See Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum” PL 187, 1234, P. II C. 23, q. 5, c. 47 https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y quote in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[147]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 782, lV, tit. 7, 10

[148]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[149] Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 795

[150]See “Letter of Innocent III to Durand of Huesca and his brethren,” 5 July 1209 in Regesta XV, XII.69; translated in HHM, 226–28 cf. E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 104

[151]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 780, l. V, tit. 7, 9

[152]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 787ss, l. V, tit. 7, 13

[153]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 789, l. V, tit. 7, 15

[154]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 1091ss, l. VI, tit. 5, 9, 5

[155]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[156]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 1091ss, l. VI, tit. 5, 9, 5, quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/)

[157]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 810, l. V, tit. 18, 1

[158]On these texts and their commentators, cf. H. Gilles, "Peine de mort et droit canonique", La mort et l'au-delà en méridionale France (XIIe-XVe siècles), Privat [Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 33], Toulouse, 1998, pp. 393-416.] Quoted in: Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[159]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881, p.789 l. 5, 7, 15

[160]Antonia Fiori "Eresie" in "Federiciana" (2005), text published online on the website www.treccani.it http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/eresie_(Federiciana)/

[161]Concetta Bianca "Martino V" in Biographical Dictionary of Italians, Volume 71 (2008) http://www.treccani.it, http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/papa-martino-v_%28Dtionary-Biografico%29 /

[162]Joseph Von Hefele, “Histoire des Conciles d'après les documents originaux”, Letouzey et Ané, Paris 1907, vol. I, pp. 53, 68-74 and vol. VII-1, p. 571). "(R. De Mattei" Fake news? No, historical truth "http://www.robertodemattei.it/2020/08/24/fake-news-no-verita-storica/

[163]CJ Hefele “Histoire des Conciles d'après les documents originaux”, Librairie Le Clere, Paris 1876, T. 11 p. 83 https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=7qvS0vQT8HcC&hl=it&pg=GBS.PA78

[164]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1272

[165]Const. “Quum secundum statuta”, in Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et adnotatione critis instruxit ", II, Lipsiae 1881, p. 1190s; L. 5, tit. 9, 1

[166]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[167]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1483

[168]See Radio Spada “Italian translation of Leo X's bull“ Exsurge Domine ”against Luther” Radio Spada 15.6. 2019 https://www.radiospada.org/2019/06/traduzione-della-bolla-exsurge-domine-di-leone-x-contro-lutero/

[169]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1492

[170]See Radio Spada “Italian translation of Leo X's bull“ Exsurge Domine ”against Luther” Radio Spada 15.6. 2019 https://www.radiospada.org/2019/06/traduzione-della-bolla-exsurge-domine-di-leone-x-contro-lutero/

[171]"Catechism of Tridentine", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 328 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/30page.htm

[172]Leo XIII, “Pastoralis Officii”, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091891_pastoralis-officii.html, cfr. Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.3272

[173]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[174]https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[175]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3720

[176]Pius XII "Speech to Parish Priests and Lentenists" of 23.2.1944 www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1944/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19440223_inscrutabile-consiglio. html

[177]Pius XII, “Speech to the medical-biological union s. Luca ", Sunday, 12 November 1944, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1944/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19441112_unione-medico-biologica.html

[178]"Address to members of army medical corps", February 13, 1945, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/speeches/1945/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19450213_medici-chirurghi. html

[179]Cf. Pius XII, "Address to the participants in the I International Congress of" Histopathology of the Nervous System "", 14/9/1952, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii /es/speeches/1952/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19520914_istopatologia.html

[180]"Speech to the participants of the VI National Study Conference of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists" of l5.12.1954 www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1954/documents /hf_p-xii_spe_19541205_giuristi-cattolici.html

[181]Benedict XVI, Exhortation Ap. post-synodal "Africae munus" (November 19, 2011), n. 83 www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20111119_africae-munus.html

[182]Id., "General Audience" November 30, 2011 www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20111130.html

[183]John Paul II "Evangelium Vitae", 25.3.1995, n. 56, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[184]Mimmo Muolo "From Adam's apple to the death penalty." in "Avvenire" of 10.12.1992 p. 17

[185]See PG Accornero, "Bishop Maggiolini, one of the editors, speaks." in “Our time” 6.12.1992, 6

[186]John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 56: AAS 87 (1995) 464; cf. also Id., Message for the 2001 World Day of Peace, 19: AAS 93 (2001) 244, where the use of the death penalty is defined as "anything but necessary".

[187]Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" n. 405, 2.4.2004, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_it.html#a)%20La%20legittima%20difesa

[188]Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007 https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/; original article in English: Dulles “Catholicism and capital punishment” First Things April, 2001 https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-capital-punishment

[189]Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007 https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/; original article in English: Dulles “Catholicism and capital punishment” First Things April, 2001 https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-capital-punishment

[190]Sabino Paciolla “Card. Müller: sexual abuse of the clergy implies sexual misconduct, not just clericalism ", www.sabinopaciolla.com 24.1.2019 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-muller-labuso-sessuale-del-clero- implies-sexual-misconduct-not-only-clericalism /

[191]See Gen 9,6: 19,11; Jn 13; Rom 1, 7-5; Innocent III, Professio fidei Waldensibus praescripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 4, n. 5; Pius XII, Address to the participants in the National Study Conference of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists, December 1954, XNUMX

[192]"The Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) Declaration on the truths concerning some of the most common errors in the life of the Church in our time. " in Corrispondenza Romana, 10 June 2019 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/nota-esplicativa-alla-dichiarazione-sulle-verita-riguardanti-alcuni-degli-errori-piu-comuni-nella-vita-della-chiesa-nel -our-time-in-our-time-the-church-is-living-one-of /

[193]Bernard Wuellner, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1956), pp. 68-69

[194]Bessette and Feser “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed. A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment "Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2017, chapter" "Natural Law and Capital Punishment"

[195]See H. Lio "Poena mortis" in "Dictionarium morale et canonicum", Officuum Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 678

[196]Sabino Paciolla “Card. Müller: sexual abuse of the clergy implies sexual misconduct, not just clericalism ", www.sabinopaciolla.com 24.1.2019 https://www.sabinopaciolla.com/card-Müller-labuso-sessuale-del-clero- implies-sexual-misconduct-not-only-clericalism /

[197]See Francesco Cardinal Roberti and Pietro Palazzini, eds., "Dictionary of Moral Theology" (London: Burns and Oates, 1962), p. 697

[198]See Bessette and Feser “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed. A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment "Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2017, chapter" "Natural Law and Capital Punishment"

[199]Online Vocabulary, item: "Ordering" in Online Vocabulary, Treccani (text consulted on 6.7.2020)

http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/ordinazione/

[200]Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Libertas Praestantissimum" of 20 June 1888, n. 8, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

[201]Paul VI, Encyclical Letter "Humanae Vitae" of 1968 ,, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

[202]See Bessette and Feser “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed. A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment ”Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2017, paragraph“ Capital Punishment

[203]Hernán Judge "Argumentos racionales y bíblicos sobre la pena de muerte en la patrística" in Teología y Vida, Vol. LII (2011), 307-322 https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0049 -34492011000100017

[204]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 84

[205]Leo XIII Encyclical Lett. "Immortale Dei", www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.html

[206]Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church”, 2.4.2004 www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_it. html # a)% 20The% 20signory% 20of% 20God

[207]See I-II, q. 93, a. 3, ad 2: Ed. Leon. 7, 164 text quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1902

[208]Leo XIII Encyclical Letter "Immortale Dei", 1.11.1985, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.htm

[209]Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", 2.4.2004, n. 402, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_it.html#e)%20Infliggere%20le%20pene

[210]See quotation from J.-Y. Pertin, J.-Y. Pertin, Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand, L'Harmattan, 2015, p. 309. The references of the letters are made on the edition of D. Norberg, "Gregorii Magni" Registrum epistularum ", CCSL 140-140A, (l. XII, epistula 11) Tournai, 1982

[211]See quote from J.-Y. Pertin, J.-Y. Pertin, Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand, L'Harmattan, 2015 p. 286 The references of the letters are made on the edition of D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum", CCSL 140-140A, (VIII, 19) Tournai, 1982

[212]See quote from J.-Y. Pertin, J.-Y. Pertin, Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand, L'Harmattan, 2015 p. 291. The references of the letters are made on the edition of D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum", CCSL 140-140A, (l. IX, epistula 86) Tournai, 1982

[213]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[214]Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", 2.4.2004, n. 402, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_it.html#e)%20Infliggere%20le%20pene

[215]Voice "Poena", P. Palazzini, Dictionarium morale et canonicum, Officium Libri Catholici, Rome, 1962, t. 3, p. 673-675, cité par M. Hendrickx, «Le magistère et la peine de mort. Réflexions sur le Catéchisme et “Evangelium vitæ” », Nouvelle Revue Théologique, t. 118/1, 1996, p. 12.

[216]Cyrille Dounot “A doctrinal solution of continuity. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[217]"Speech to the Delegation of the International Association of Criminal Law" (23 October 2014), www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa- francesco_20141023_ international-association-criminal-law.html

[218]See Address to a delegation from the International Association of Criminal Law, 23 October 2014

[219]Francesco "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", of 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents/ pope-francis_20181217_commission-counter-death-penalty.html

[220]Francesco "Speech to the Penitentiary Police, to the Staff of the Penitentiary Administration and Juvenile and Community Justice", Saturday, September 14, 2019, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/ speeches / 2019 / september / documents / pope-francis_20190914_polizia-penitenziaria.html

[221]Francesco "Speech to the participants in the XX World Congress of the International Association of Criminal Law", Friday, November 15, 2019, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2019/ november / documents / pope-francis_20191115_diritto-penal.html

[222]"Speech to Participants in the International Meeting for Regional and National Leaders of Prison Pastoral Care", 8 November 2019, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2019/november /documents/papa-francesco_20191108_pastorale-carceraria.html

[223]John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" 25.5.1995 n. 55, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[224]Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", 2.4.2004, n. 500, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_it.html#e)%20Infliggere%20le%20pene

[225]S. Alphonsi Mariae de Ligorio: “Theologia moralis” t. III Romae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCCCCIX, Editio photomechanica. Sumptibus CssR. 1953, p. 663 https://www.santalfonsoedintorni.it/theologia-moralis_1.html

[226]John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" 25.5.1995 n. 56, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[227]IIª-IIae q. 49 a. 8 ad 3 translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by ESD i.e. Editrice Studio Domenicano

[228]Sum against the Gentiles, lib. 3 chap. 146 n. 7 and 8 Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, Turin, First edition eBook: March 2013

[229] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment (articolo visto il 6.7.2020)

[230]http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4005-capital-punishment (articolo visto il 6.7.2020)

[231]See Haim Hermann Cohn, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Menachem Elon "Capital punishment" in "Encyclopedia Judaica", The Gale Group 2008, (article seen on 6.7.2020) https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment

[232]See Haim Hermann Cohn, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Menachem Elon "Capital punishment" in "Encyclopedia Judaica", The Gale Group 2008, (article seen on 6.7.2020) https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment

[233]See Haim Hermann Cohn, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Menachem Elon "Capital punishment" in "Encyclopedia Judaica", The Gale Group 2008, (article seen on 6.7.2020) https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment

[234]See Haim Hermann Cohn, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Menachem Elon "Capital punishment" in "Encyclopedia Judaica", The Gale Group 2008, (article seen on 6.7.2020) https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment

[235]Jacob Neusner "Crucifixion in Rabbinic Context: Juridical or Theological?" in Shofar, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 23, No. 3 • 2005 pp. 84s

[236]See Jacob Neusner "Crucifixion in Rabbinic Context: Juridical or Theological?" in Shofar, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 23, No. 3 • 2005 p. 81

[237]See Jacob Neusner "Crucifixion in Rabbinic Context: Juridical or Theological?" in Shofar, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 23, No. 3 • 2005 p. 81s

[238]See Jacob Neusner "Crucifixion in Rabbinic Context: Juridical or Theological?" in Shofar, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 23, No. 3 • 2005 p. 83

[239]See Jacob Neusner "Crucifixion in Rabbinic Context: Juridical or Theological?" in Shofar, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies Vol. 23, No. 3 • 2005 p. 83s

[240]La Civiltà Cattolica, “A private meeting of the Pope with some Colombian Jesuits” year 2017, notebook 4015, volume IV pag. 3 - 10, 7 October 2017 https://it.aleteia.org/2017/09/29/amoris-laetitia-papa-francesco-risponde-dubia-morale-tomista/2/

[241]Pope Francis "Speech" for "Opening of the Ecclesial Convention of the Diocese of Rome with Pope Francis in the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano", 16.06.2016, www.vatican.va, https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa /it/bollettino/pubblico/2016/06/16/0447/01021.html

[242]John XXIII, Encicl. "Mater et Magistra", III: AAS 53 (1961) 447: cf. John Paul II, "Address to priests participating in a study seminar on" Responsible procreation ", 17 September 1983

[243]Cf. Pius XII, Address to the Medical-Biological Union “S. Luca". November 12, 1944: Speeches and Radio Messages, VI (1944-1945) 191-192.)

[244]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instr. "Donum vitae", 5, www.vatican.va,

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for%20human-life_it.html

[245]John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae”, 25.3.1995, n. 56, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[246]John Paul II "Homily" 27.1.1999, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/homilies/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19990127_stlouis.html

[247]Pope John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation "Ecclesia in America" ​​63 Ecclesia in America,

[248]Pope John Paul II, “Message for the day of the sick” 11.2.2003, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/messages/sick/documents/hf_jp -ii_mes_20030207_world-day-of-the-sick-2003.html

[249]See the article by H. Lio in “Dictionarium morale et canonicum”, Romae, 1966, III pag. 677 ff.

[250]See also J. Leclerq "Leçons de Droit Naturel." Wesmael-Charlier, Namur 1946, IV 89

[251]S. Agostino "Confessioni" 2,4,9, translation taken from the site www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/confessioni/index2.htm

[252]"Speech to the Officials and Lawyers of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for the inauguration of the judicial year" of 21.1.2000, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it /speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana.html

[253]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Letter to the Bishops regarding the new redaction of n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 02.08.2018, www.vatican.va, http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/ 2018/08/02/0556 / 01210.html

[254]Cost. "Fidei Depositum" of 11-10-1992, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_it/aposcons_it.htm

[255]Francesco “Speech of the s. Father Francesco to the participants in the meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, "Wednesday, 11 October 2017, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2017 /october/documents/papa-francesco_20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html

[256]Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter “Brothers all” dated 3.10.2020 n. 265, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#_ftnref253

[257]See Lactance, “Epitome des Institutions Divines, trans. Michel Perrin (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1987), chap. VI, 20; Lactantius, “A Treatise on the Anger of God, in“ Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries ”, ed. A. Cleveland Coxe (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), vol. 7, 273, 274, the text in question is also found in PL 6, 705-713

[258]Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter “Brothers all” dated 3.10.2020 n. 265, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#_ftnref253

[259]"Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum", PL 119, 978-1016 https://books.google.it/books?id=3iPuOWKAb0YC&redir_esc=y

[260]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[261]See “Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum”, PL 119, 978-1016, chap. 26 https://books.google.it/books?id=3iPuOWKAb0YC&redir_esc=y quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[262]Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter “Brothers all” dated 3.10.2020 n. 265 http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html#_ftnref253

[263]Epistula ad Marcellinum, 133, 1.2: PL 33, 509 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova Sant'Agostino - Lettere publishing house online (augustinus.it)

[264]Pius X, Motu proprio “Sacrorum antistitum”, anti-modernist oath, cf. Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3541, www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-x_motu-proprio_19100901_sacrorum-antistitum.html

[265]Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Filius", chapter 4. Faith and reason, cf. Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3020

[266]George William Rutler, “Pope Francis' new comments on the death penalty are incoherent and dangerous” Catholic World Report 18.12.2018 https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/12/18/pope-francis-new-comments-on -the-death-penalty-are-incoherent-and-dangerous /

[267]E. Echeverria "Pope Francis, the Lérinian legacy of Vatican II, and capital punishment" Catholic World Report, 15.10.2017 https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/15/pope-francis-the-lerinian-legacy -of-Vatican-ii-and-capital-punishment /

[268]See "The apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia: a theological criticism", Roman Correspondence of 17-8-2016 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/lesortazione-apostolica-amoris-laetitia-una-critica-teologica/

[269]See "Speech of John Paul II to the Officials and Advocates of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for the inauguration of the judicial year" of 21.1.2000, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john -paul-ii / en / speeches / 2000 / jan-mar / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana.html

[270]"An Appeal to the Cardinals of the Catholic Church" First Things, 15 August 2018 https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/an-appeal-to-the-cardinals-of-the-catholic -church; D. Montagna "75 clergy, scholars appeal to Cardinals: Urge Francis to 'withdraw' death penalty teaching" Lifesite news 15.8.2018 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/open-appeal-to-cardinals-urge-pope -to-restore-catechism-to-truth-on-death-p

[271]Pope Francis, "Angelus" of 21-2-2016, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/angelus/2016/documents/papa-francesco_angelus_20160221.html

[272]"Video message to the VI Congress against the death penalty", 21-23.6.2016, www.vatican.va,

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/messages/pont-messages/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160621_videomessaggio-vi-congresso-contro-pena-di-morte.html

[273]John XXIII, Encicl. "Mater et Magistra", III: AAS 53 (1961) 447: cf. John Paul II, "Address to priests participating in a study seminar on" Responsible procreation ", 17 September 1983 ...

[274]Cf. Pius XII, Address to the Medical-Biological Union “S. Luca". November 12, 1944: Speeches and Radio Messages, VI (1944-1945) 191-192.

[275]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instr. "Donum vitae", 5, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for%20human-life_it.html

[276]St. John Paul II, Address to the participants in the 35th General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 29 October 1983: AAS 76 (1984) 390.

[277]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instr. "Donum vitae", Introduction n. 4, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for%20human-life_it.html

[278]Part 1 n. 1, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for%20human-life_it.html

[279]Part III, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for%20human-life_it.html

[280]John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae”, 25.3.1995, n. 57, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[281]Pius XII, "Speech to the medical-biological union" San Luca "", Sunday, November 12, 1944, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1944 /documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19441112_unione-medico-biologica.html

[282]Francesco "Speech to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty", of 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents/ pope-francis_20181217_commission-counter-death-penalty.html

[283]Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 7.12.1965, n. 79: AAS 58 (1966) 1103, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_it.html

[284]John Paul II, “Evangelium Vitae”, 25.3.1995, n. 55, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

[285]See, Concetti, Gino, "La peine de mort peut-elle encore etre consideré come légitime?" Documentation Catholique No. 1750, 1977, pp. 187- 188

[286]See, “Les eveques canadiens et la

peine de mort ”, La Documentation Catholique No. 1627, 1973, 246

[287]See, “Commission Sociale de l´Episcopat francais. Elements

de reflexion sur la peine de mort ”, La Documentation Catholique No. 1735, 1978, pp.

108-115

[288]The penalty de muerte. Declaración de la Conferencia Episcopal de los Estados Unidos, Eclessia, 1992, pp. 858-862

[289]Carlos Novoa MSI “Punishment de Dios y penalty de muerte” Theologica Xaveriana 141 (2002) p. 93 note 28

[290]See Concepts "Death Penalty" ed. Piemme, Casale Monferrato 1993 pp. 50s; Blazquez “The punishment of death following Tomas and today's abolitionism”, Revista chilena de derecho Vol. 10, no. 2 (August 1983), p. 306

[291]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 60

[292]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 61

[293]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 61

[294]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[295]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[296]Innocent I, “Letter to Exsuperius” of 20.2.405; PL 20, 498-502; for the exact translation see A. di Berardino, edited by, “The canons of the ancient church councils. vol. II. The Latin councils. 1 Decretals. Roman Councils. Canons of Serdica ”, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 2008, p. 117

[297]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881, p.789 l. 5, 7, 15

[298]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1483

[299]See Radio Spada “Italian translation of Leo X's bull“ Exsurge Domine ”against Luther” Radio Spada 15.6. 2019 https://www.radiospada.org/2019/06/traduzione-della-bolla-exsurge-domine-di-leone-x-contro-lutero/

[300]cf "Catechism of Tridentine", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 328 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/30page.htm

[301]Leo XIII “Pastoralis Officii”, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091891_pastoralis-officii.html, cfr. Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.3272

[302]Cyrille Dounot “A doctrinal solution of continuity. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église ", Revue Catholica 16.10.2018, https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[303]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instr. "Donum vitae", 22.2.1987, n. 5, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for%20human-life_it.html

[304]"Reflections on the death penalty" in La Civiltà Cattolica, 1981 vol. I p. 417ss https://books.google.it/books?id=29xNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA416-IA5&lpg=PA416-IA5&dq=la+civilt%C3%A0+cattolica+1981+pena+di+death&source=bl&AMots=PnRe_MWsUeQUZ3&sig3XHL_MWsUe&sig5AC307 = X & ved = 9ahUKEwjqt1v2nLHqAhURw8QBHRCYAWoQ2AEwAnoECAoQAQ # v = onepage & q = la% 8civilt% C6% A20% 3catolica% 0% 20pena% 201981di% 20death & f = false)

[305]Innocent I, “Letter to Exsuperius” of 20.2.405; PL 20, 498-502; for the exact translation see A. di Berardino, edited by, “The canons of the ancient church councils. vol. II. The Latin councils. 1 Decretals. Roman Councils. Canons of Serdica ”, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 2008, p. 117

[306]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[307]See "Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum", PL 119, 978-1016, chap. 26 quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[308]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[309]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74

[310]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74-95

[311]See E. Feser, J. Bessette, “By Man Shall His Blood be Shed. A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment ”Ignatius, San Francisco, 2017, cap. 2, paragraph entitled "Capital punishment in Scripture"

[312]Ch. Journet, “L'Église du Verbe incarné”, t. 1, “La hiérarchie apostolique”, Saint-Maurice, éditions Saint-Augustin, 1998, p. 575; quoted in Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 (https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[313]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74-95

[314]Clement of Alexandria, Stromata in The “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. 1, 299–340.

[315]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881, p.789 l. 5, 7, 15

[316]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1272

[317]https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[318]cf "Catechism of Tridentine", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 328 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/30page.htm

[319]1987 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "Donum Vitae" Part III, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for%20human-life_it.html

[320]N. Blazquez “La Pena de muerte y biotanasia de estado” Vision Libros 2012 pp. 26s

[321]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007 https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[322]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 60

[323]Blazquez, “The penalty of death following Tomas and today's abolitionism”, Revista chilena de derecho Vol. 10, no. 2 (August 1983) p. 287s

[324]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[325]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[326]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[327]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[328]Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church", 2.4.2004, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_it .html # a)% 20The% 20signory% 20of% 20God

[329]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 84

[330]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74

[331]See E. Feser, J. Bessette, “By Man Shall His Blood be Shed. A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment ”Ignatius, San Francisco, 2017, p. 119., cit. in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[332]See Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[333]See S. Bonaventura, Opera omnia, Vivès, 1868, t. 12, p. 250. "Sermo VI") (See Cyrille Dounot "Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église" Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/ 16 / une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale /

[334]In III Sententiarum, q. XXXVII dub. V in S. Bonaventurae "Opera Omnia" ed. Quaracchi 1887, t. III, p. 834

[335]Blazquez, “The penalty of death following Tomas and today's abolitionism”, Revista chilena de derecho Vol. 10, no. 2 (August 1983), p. 277-316)

[336]N. Blazquez, “The penalty of death following the holy Tomas and today's abolitionism”, Revista chilena de derecho Vol. 10, no. 2 (August 1983), p. 289

[337]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 75

[338]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 84

[339]Cf. "Sum against the Gentiles" III c. 63) and in doing this he makes use of secondary causes (cf. "Sum against the Gentiles" III ch. 77

[340]II-II q. 64 a.1 translation from the 2001 edition of the Supreme Theological CD Rom, ESD

[341]II-II q. 64 a.2 translation from the 2001 edition of the Supreme Theological CD Rom, ESD

[342]II-II q. 64 a.2 arg. 3m translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[343]II-II q. 64 a.6, translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[344]II-II q. 64 a.2 ad. 3m translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[345]II-II q. 64 a.1 translation from the 2001 edition of the Supreme Theological CD Rom, ESD

[346]IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 co. translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[347]N. Blazquez, “The penalty of death following the holy Tomas and today's abolitionism”, Revista chilena de derecho Vol. 10, no. 2 (August 1983), p. 285

[348]See Clemente Alessandrino, Stromata, l. 1, ch. 27, PG 8, 918-921; Clement of Alexandria “Stromateis”, The Fathers of the Church (series), The Catholic University of America Press, 1991, vol. 85, p. 149

[349]Pius XII, "Speech to the medical-biological union" San Luca ", Sunday, November 12, 1944, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1944/ documents / hf_p-xii_spe_19441112_medical-biological-union.html

[350]N. Blazquez, “The penalty of death following the holy Tomas and today's abolitionism”, Revista chilena de derecho Vol. 10, no. 2 (August 1983), p. 277-316; N. Blazquez, “La pena de muerte y biotanasia de estado” Vision Libros 2012

[351]I-II, q.109, a.1, ad 1; on this passage and on the parallel passages see A. Strumia "Omne Verum, a quocumque dicatur, a Spiritu Sancto est" www.albertostrumia.it, http://www.albertostrumia.it/%C2%ABomne-verum- quocumque-dicatur-spiritu-sancto-est% C2% BB accessed on 6.12.2021

[352]M. Roncalli "Eusebi: The Church and the death penalty, between theology and law" Week News 9.8.2018 http://www.settimananews.it/societa/eusebi-la-chiesa-la-pena-morte-teologia- right/

[353]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[354]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[355]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[356]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74

[357]Serge-Thomas Bonino, op “Love, justice and omnipotence of God according to Saint Thomas”, Faculty of Theology. Pontifical University of s. Tommaso in Urbe, Dispensa ad usum librium (1st semester 2019-2020) p. 33; from now on I will quote this book as ST Bonino "Love ..."

[358]Cf. Ps 1, 1-6; 112, 1-10; Ps 44; Gb 10, 1-7; 13, 3-28; 23-24; Ps 37; Gb 38-42; Is 53; Sap 3-5; Mt 25,31 ff; Lk 26: 3-33; Fil. 4,3; Ap. 3,5; 17,8; 20,12; 20,15; 21,8; 21, 27; 22,15 etc .; on this point see also: J. Riviere “Jugement” in Emile Amann; Eugene Mangenot; Alfred Vacant “Dictionnaire de théologie catholique: containing the exposé des doctrines de la théologie catholique, leurs preuves et leur histoire” Paris, Letouzey et Ané 1908-1950 vol. VIII col. 1721-1828; Pierre Adnès “Jugement” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, t. VIII columns 1571ss

[359]See 1 Jn. 1,9; Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 228,621,628

[360]for a broad overview of the most relevant texts and authors who affirm this remuneration, the two articles already indicated can be usefully consulted: J. Riviere “Jugement” in Emile Amann; Eugene Mangenot; Alfred Vacant “Dictionnaire de théologie catholique: containing the exposé des doctrines de la théologie catholique, leurs preuves et leur histoire” Paris, Letouzey et Ané 1908-1950 vol. VIII col. 1721-1828; Pierre Adnès “Jugement” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, t. VIII columns 1571ss

[361]Against Celsus VIII, 48; quoted in Pierre Adnès “Jugement” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, t. VIII columns 1571ss

[362]See St. Joannis Chrysostomi “Homiliae in Genesim” PG 53, 145. hom. XVII n. 9; De diabolo tempter 1, 8, PG 49, 258; quoted in Pierre Adnès “Jugement” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, t. VIII columns 1571ss

[363]De civitate Dei XX, 1-3, PL 41, 657-661; quoted in Pierre Adnès “Jugement” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, t. VIII columns 1571ss

[364]The soul and its origin "2,4,8 Italian translation taken from the site www.augustinus.it, https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/anima_origine/index2.htm

[365]See Pierre Adnès “Jugement” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, ed. Beauchesne, 1932-1995, t. VIII columns 1578; S. Gregio di Nazienzo “Orationes 16, 8, PG 35, 944d-945a; s. Agostino "The city of God" XX, 14 Italian translation taken from the site www.augustinus.it, https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/cdd/index2.htm

[366]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 857s

[367]Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1001s

[368]Paul VI Apostolic Constitution “Indulgentiarum Doctrina” of 1.1.1967 n. 2, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_01011967_indulgentiarum-doctrina.html

[369]See Paul VI, "Homily" Sunday, February 14, 1965, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/homilies/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19650214.html

[370]II-II, q. 7 a. 1 to 2; "Chain in Lucam", chap. 14 l. 3; "Super Mattheum". [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini], chap. 20 l. 1;

[371]S. Tommaso d 'Aquino, “Compendium of theology and other writings”, UTET, Turin, First edition eBook: March 2013 p. I c. 172 n. 340

[372]See “The Church and the problem of punishment. On the answer to the negative as a juridical and theological challenge. ”, Ed. La Scuola, 2014 pp. 7ss. 22s. 25-52. 71

[373]"Catechism of Tridentine", ed. Cantagalli 1992, n. 89 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/11page.htm

[374]III, 59, a.1, "Somma Theologica", translation taken from the online edition, Edizioni Studio Domenicano, https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Terza_Parte/index.html#699/z

[375]III, 59, aa.2 and 4 "Somma Theologica", translation taken from the online edition, Edizioni Studio Domenicano, https://www.edizionistudiodomenicano.it/Docs/Sfogliabili/La_Somma_Teologica_Terza_Parte/index.html#703/z

[376]"Catechism of Tridentine", ed. Cantagalli 1992, n. 94 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/11page.htm

[377]s. Alfonso M. de 'Liguori "Way of health", in "Ascetic Works" Vol. X, Editions of History and Literature, Rome 1968 p. 68

[378]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, "Apparatus to death", in "Ascetic Works" Vol. IX, Editions of History and Literature, Rome 1965 pp. 232-233

[379]Fr Angelo Bellon "I have difficulty understanding certain pages of the Bible especially where God incites war and extermination" Dominican friends 10.7.2012 https://www.amicidomenicani.it/ho-difficolta-a-capire-certe-pagine- of-the-bible-above-all-where-god-incites-war-and-extermination /

[380]See “The Church and the problem of punishment. On the answer to the negative as a juridical and theological challenge. ”, Ed. La Scuola, 2014 p. 19 ff

[381]Cf Council of Trent, Sess. 5a, Original decretum de sin, canon 3: DS 1513; Pius XII, Encyclical letter Humani generis: DS 3897; Paul VI, Address to the participants in the Symposium of some theologians and scientists on the mystery of original sin (11 July 1966): AAS 58 (1966) 649-655.

[382]Benedict XVI, “General Audience” 10.12.2008, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081210.html; see in this line also “General Audience” 3.12.2008, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203.html; “Angelus” 8.12.2008, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20081208.html; "Homily" 8.12.2005, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20051208_anniv-vat-council.html

[383]Benedict XVI "Angelus" 8.8.2008, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20081208.html

[384]Benedict XVI, "General Audience" 3.12.2008, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203.html

[385]"Death" in Spadafora (directed by) "Biblical Dictionary" Studium 1963 2 vols. (AM; MZ)

[386]M. Sales “The Holy Bible commented on by Fr. M. Sales "Turin 1914, v. II, p. 41

[387]RE Brown, JA Fitzmeyer, RE Murphy (edited by) "New Great Biblical Commentary" Queriniana 2014

[388]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 371-372.385

[389]Aa. Vv .. Decisions of Ecumenical Councils (Classics of Religion) (Italian Edition) (positions in Kindle 8200-8204). De Agostini Libri, Novara 2013 Edition of the Kindle.

[390]Paul VI "Profession of faith" Sunday, 30 June 1968, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html

[391]John Paul II, "General Audience", Wednesday, 8 October 1986, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1986/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19861008 .html; , General Audience, Wednesday, 25 June 1997, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997.html

[392]Origen, “In Exodum homilia”, 8, 1: SC 321, 242 (PG 12, 350) quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 206

[393]Benedict XVI "Angelus" 8.8.2008, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20081208.html

[394]See St. Thomas Aquinas “Compendium of theology and other writings” Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, First edition eBook: March 2013, p. I c. 195, 372

[395]“The Church and the problem of punishment. On the answer to the negative as a juridical and theological challenge. ”, Ed. La Scuola, 2014 p. 20 note 23

[396]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 372

[397]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1511

[398]Paul VI "Profession of faith" Sunday, 30 June 1968, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html

[399]See John Paul II, General Audience, Wednesday, 25 June 1997, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997 .html; Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1473

[400]See "Creation" in the Italian Encyclopedia Treccani 1931, www.treccani http://www.treccani.it/encyclopedia/creazione_%28Encyclopedia-Italiana%29/

[401]“The Church and the problem of punishment. On the answer to the negative as a juridical and theological challenge. ”, Ed. La Scuola, 2014 p. 27ss

[402]Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Libertas Praestantissimum" 20.6.1988, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

[403]International Theological Commission “God the Trinity, unity of men. Christian monotheism against violence "17.1.2014 n. 27, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140117_monoteismo-cristiano_it.html#2._Monoteismo_e_violenza:_un_legame_necessario

[404]Cf. Gen 3,15:3; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. Dei Verbum, 56, quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. XNUMX

[405]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 485

[406]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 492; 1523; 1740

[407]Leo XIII Encyclical Letter "Caritatis Studium" (Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3339

[408]Pius XII, Encyclical Letter “Mediator Dei” 20.11.1947, p. II www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html)

[409]Pius XII, Encyclical Letter "Haurietis Aquas" of 15.5.1956 https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_15051956_haurietis-aquas.html

[410]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, II, 2, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[411]III, q. 48 a. 4 translation from the 2001 edition of Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by Edizioni Studio Domenicano

[412]See III q. 46 a. 4 translation made by me on the basis of the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by ESD i.e. Editrice Studio Domenicano

[413]See III q. 46 a. 5 translation made by me on the basis of the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by ESD i.e. Editrice Studio Domenicano

[414]See III q. 46 a. 6 translation made by me on the basis of the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by ESD i.e. Editrice Studio Domenicano

[415]Pius XI, Encyclical Letter "Miserentissimus Redemptor" 8.5.1920, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280508_miserentissimus-redemptor.html

[416]Pius XII, Encyclical Letter “Mediator Dei” 20.11.1947, p. II www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

[417]Pius XI, Encyclical Letter "Miserentissimus Redemptor" 8.5.1920, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280508_miserentissimus-redemptor.html

[418]See St. Paul VI Apostolic Constitution “Indulgentiarum Doctrina” of 1.1.1967 n. 3 www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_01011967_indulgentiarum-doctrina.html; "General audience" 24.7.1968 https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1968/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19680724.html

[419]International Theological Commission "Reconciliation and Penance" 1982, B, II, 2, www.vatican.va,

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1982_riconciliazione-penitenza_it.html

[420]III, q. 49 a.3 at 1m; translation from the 2001 edition of Somma Theologica on CD Rom, edited by Edizioni Studio Domenicano

[421]See s. John of the Cross “Spiritual Canticle” stanzas 36-37, Letter to p. Giovanni di s. Anna n.23; Saint Rose of Lima, “Writings”, To the doctor Castillo; and. L. Getino, La Patrona de América, Madrid 1928, pp. 54-55; s. Catherine of Siena “Dialogue of Divine Providence” Cantagalli 1994 p. 32. s. Luigi Grignion de Montfort “Circular letter to the friends of the Cross”; see also the writings of s. Paul of the Cross, of s. Veronica Giuliani etc.

[422]“Memoirs of Sister Lucia”, p. 166s (IV Memory) www.fatima.pt, https://www.fatima.pt/it/pages/narrativa-delle-apparizioni-

[423]"Memoirs of Sister Lucia", pp. 169-170 (IV Memoria), www.fatima.pt, https://www.fatima.pt/it/pages/narrativa-delle-apparizioni-

[424]"Memoirs of Sister Lucia", pp. 171-172 (IV Memoria), www.fatima.pt, https://www.fatima.pt/it/pages/narrativa-delle-apparizioni-

[425]S. Alfonso M. de Liguori "The love of souls" in "Ascetic Works" Vol. V, CSSR, Rome 1934, p. 34

[426]See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 801, 858, 1002,1306, 1580

[427]See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 443

[428]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 492

[429]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.574

[430]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 596

[431]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 797

[432]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.1002

[433]See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, nn. 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, "Creed of the People of God", 12: AAS 60 (1968) 438, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p- vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html; Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1035

[434]Discorso 90, 4 translation taken from the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/index2.htm

[435]Speech 111, my translation; see the sermon on the website www.augustinus.it which publishes the works of the Città Nuova publisher online https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/index2.htm

[436]St. Leo the Great Pope and Doctor of the Church, Sermo XLIX (XI De Quadragesima) PL 54, 302

[437]Cf. Eusebi, “The Church and the problem of punishment. On the answer to the negative as a juridical and theological challenge. ”, Ed. La Scuola, 2014 p. 51

[438]Fastiggi “Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent, .doc” p. 1-21 https://www.academia.edu/34285853/Capital_Punishment_the_Magisterium_and_Religious_Assent.doc www.academia.edu

[439] R. Fastiggi "Is there really a definitive teaching of the Church on capital punishment?" Catholic World Report 10.11.2017

[440] R. Fastiggi "Pope Francis and Papal Authority under Attack" La Stampa 18.2.2019 https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2019/02/18/news/pope-francis-and-papal-authority -under-attack-1.33681809

[441]Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Verbum" 18.11.1965, 9, www.vatican.va, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[442]Benedict XVI, "Address to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission", 23.4.2009, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/speeches/2009/april/documents/hf_ben -xvi_spe_20090423_pcb.html

[443]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[444]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63)

[445]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[446]Ch. Journet, “L'Église du Verbe incarné”, t. 1, La hiérarchie apostolique, Saint-Maurice, éditions Saint-Augustin, 1998, p. 575; quoted in Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[447]See H. Lio "Poena mortis" in "Dictionarium morale et canonicum", Officuum Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 678

[448]See H. Lio "Poena mortis" in "Dictionarium morale et canonicum", Officuum Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 678

[449]See Address to the Delegation of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, 17.12.2018, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2018/december/documents/papa -francesco_20181217_commission-counter-death-penalty.html

[450]See R. Fastiggi "Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent,"

Josephinum Journal of Theology Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer Fall, 2005) p.192-213; I will follow this article but as it is present online "Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent, .doc" p. 1-21 https://www.academia.edu/34285853/Capital_Punishment_the_Magisterium_and_Religious_Assent.doc

[451]Br. Thomas Williams, LC, "Capital Punishment and the Just Society" in Catholic Dossier (Sept./Oct., 1998) https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/capital -punishment-and-the-just-society.html

[452]"Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent, .doc" p. 4 https://www.academia.edu/34285853/Capital_Punishment_the_Magisterium_and_Religious_Assent.doc

[453]R. Fastiggi "Is there really a definitive teaching of the Church on capital punishment?" Catholic World Report 10.11.2017

[454]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74

[455]Card. A. Dulles "Catholicism and capital punishment", alleanzacattolica.org, 27.4.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX https://alleanzacattolica.org/cattolicesimo-e-pena-capitale/

[456]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 94

[457]Y. Congar “Faith and theology”, pp. 163-164 quoted in A. Bellon "I am writing to you from St. Petersburg (Russia) and ask you how the Catholic Church explains the concept of the" consent of the fathers "Dominican friends 14.8.2017 https://www.amicidomenicani.it/le- I write-from-saint-petersburg-russia-and-ask-how-the-catholic-church-explains-the-concept-of-the-consent-of-the-fathers /

[458]Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Filius", 24.4.1870, c. 2, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei-filius-24-aprilis-1870.html

[459]Fastiggi “Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent, .doc” p. 8 https://www.academia.edu/34285853/Capital_Punishment_the_Magisterium_and_Religious_Assent.doc

[460]See “Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent,” Josephinum Journal of Theology Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer Fall, 2005) p.192-213; I will follow this article but as it is present online "Capital Punishment, the Magisterium and Religious Assent, .doc" p. 1-21 https://www.academia.edu/34285853/Capital_Punishment_the_Magisterium_and_Religious_Assent.doc

[461]Innocent I, letter to Exsuperius of 20.2.405; PL 20, 498-502; for the exact translation see A. di Berardino, edited by, “The canons of the ancient church councils. vol. II. The Latin councils. 1 Decretals. Roman Councils. Canons of Serdica ”, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 2008, p. 117

[462]R. Fastiggi "Is there really a definitive teaching of the Church on capital punishment?" Catholic World Report 10.11.2017

[463]Origins 6 (December 9, 1976) 391, Quoted in Fastiggi "Capital Punishment, the Magisterium, and Religious Assent.doc" https://www.academia.edu/34285853/Capital_Punishment_the_Magisterium_and_Religious_Assent.doc

[464]R. Fastiggi “Capital Punishment, the Magisterium, and Religious Assent.doc” p. 11 https://www.academia.edu/34285853/Capital_Punishment_the_Magisterium_and_Religious_Assent.doc

[465]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, p. 451 n. 795; PL 215, 1512

[466]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 104

[467]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881, p.789 l. 5, 7, 15

[468]R. De Mattei "L'Haec Sancta (1415), a conciliar document that was condemned by the Church." Roman Correspondence 20 July 2016, https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/lhaec-sancta-1415-un-documento-conciliare-che-fu-condannato-dalla-chiesa/

[469]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1272

[470]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1483

[471]See Radio Spada “Italian translation of Leo X's bull“ Exsurge Domine ”against Luther” Radio Spada 15.6. 2019 https://www.radiospada.org/2019/06/traduzione-della-bolla-exsurge-domine-di-leone-x-contro-lutero/

[472]Leo XIII, “Pastoralis Officii”, 12.9.1891, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091891_pastoralis-officii.html, cfr. Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.3272

[473]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/)

[474]See H. Lio "Poena mortis" in "Dictionarium morale et canonicum", Officuum Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 678

[475]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014, p. 62

[476]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[477]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[478]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 74-95

[479]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 72s

[480]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 72s

[481]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 64ss

[482]See G. Ricciotti “The letters of s. Paolo translated and commented "ed. Coletti, Rome, 1949 p. 353

[483]Pius XII, "Address to the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists" 5.2.1955 www.vatican.va www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/speeches/1955/documents/ hf_p-xii_spe_19550205_union-jurists-catholics.html

[484]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 71s

[485]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 71s

[486]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 pp. 71s

[487]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74

[488]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74-95

[489]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 142s

[490]Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution. "Dei Filius", c. 2: Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 3007

[491]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press

Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 98

[492]See Hieromonk Patapios “St. Theodore the Studite and the Problem of the Paulicians ”The Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 43, n. 1-4, Brookline Massachussets 1998, p. 143- 154 http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/en_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=patr&main=EH_texts&file=11.htm

[493]See Hieromonk Patapios “St. Theodore the Studite and the Problem of the Paulicians ”The Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 43, n. 1-4, Brookline Massachussets 1998, p. 143- 154 http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/en_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=patr&main=EH_texts&file=11.htm

[494]See Hieromonk Patapios “St. Theodore the Studite and the Problem of the Paulicians ”The Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 43, n. 1-4, Brookline Massachussets 1998, p. 143- 154 http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/en_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=patr&main=EH_texts&file=11.htm

[495]See Hieromonk Patapios “St. Theodore the Studite and the Problem of the Paulicians ”The Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 43, n. 1-4, Brookline Massachussets 1998, p. 143- 154 http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/en_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=patr&main=EH_texts&file=11.htm

[496]See Hieromonk Patapios “St. Theodore the Studite and the Problem of the Paulicians ”The Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 43, n. 1-4, Brookline Massachussets 1998, p. 143- 154 http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/en_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=patr&main=EH_texts&file=11.htm

[497]Theophanes “The Chronicle of Theophanes” Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982, p. 174

[498]Epistle I, PL 69, 394; quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église ", Revue Catholica, 16.10.2018, https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[499]Ep. XIII PL 80, 481; Mansi X, 585, [34] - quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale /

[500]Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum” l. XIII, epistula 49 ed. D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum", CCSL 140-140A, Tournai, 1982

[501]Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum” l. VIII, epistula 4 ed. D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni "Registrum epistularum", CCSL 140-140A, Tournai, 1982

[502]See Traduction de abbé J.-Y. Pertin, Justice et gouvernement dans l'Église d'après les Lettres de saint Grégoire le Grand, L'Harmattan, 2015, p. 293. The references to the letters are made on the basis of the ed. D. Norberg, Gregorii Magni “Registrum epistularum”, CCSL 140-140A, Tournai, 1982 cited in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[503]See Gratiani, “Concordia discordantium canonum” PL 187, 1234, P. II C. 23, q. 5, c. 47 https://books.google.it/books?id=JsMGxm8mJeEC&redir_esc=y quote in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[504]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press

Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 98

[505]See E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 98.143.215

[506]See "Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum", PL 119, 978-1016, chap. 26 quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[507]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 782, lV, tit. 7, 10 cit. in See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[508] Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 795

[509]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 780, l. V, tit. 7, 9

[510]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 787ss, l. V, tit. 7, 13

[511]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 789, l. V, tit. 7, 15

[512]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 1091ss, l. VI, tit. 5, 9, 5

[513]See Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[514]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 1091ss, l. VI, tit. 5, 9, 5, quoted in Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[515]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ”, II, Leipzig 1881 p. 810, l. V, tit. 18, 1

[516]On these texts and their commentators, cf. H. Gilles, "Peine de mort et droit canonique", La mort et l'au-delà en méridionale France (XIIe-XVe siècles), Privat [Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 33], Toulouse, 1998, pp. 393-416.] Quoted in: Cyrille Dounot “Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[517]Ae. Friedberg, “Corpus iuris canonici editio lipsiensis secunda post Ae. L. Richteri curas ad librorum manu scriptorum et editionis romanae fidem recognovit et critical adnotatione instruxit ", II, Leipzig 1881, p.789, l. 5, 7, 15

[518]R. De Mattei "The Haec Sancta (1415), a conciliar document that was condemned by the Church." Roman Correspondence July 20, 2016 https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/lhaec-sancta-1415-un-documento-conciliare- who-was-condemned-by-the-church /

[519]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1272

[520]“Une solution de continuuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 (https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[521]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1483

[522]See Radio Spada “Italian translation of Leo X's bull“ Exsurge Domine ”against Luther” Radio Spada 15.6. 2019 https://www.radiospada.org/2019/06/traduzione-della-bolla-exsurge-domine-di-leone-x-contro-lutero/

[523]"Catechism of Tridentine", and Cantagalli 1992, n. 328 https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/30page.htm

[524]Leo XIII "Pastoralis Officii", www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091891_pastoralis-officii.html, See Heinrich Denzinger

"Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.3272

[525]Cyrille Dounot “A doctrinal solution of continuity. Peine de mort et enseignement de l'Église "Revue Catholica 16.10.2018 https://www.catholica.presse.fr/2018/10/16/une-solution-de-continuite-doctrinale/

[526]II-II q. 64 a.1 translation from the 2001 edition of the Supreme Theological CD Rom, ESD

[527]II-II q. 64 a.2 translation from the 2001 edition of the Supreme Theological CD Rom, ESD

[528]See II-II q. 64 a.2 translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Supreme Theological CD Rom, ESD

[529]II-II q. 64 a.2 arg. 3m translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[530]II-II q. 64 a.2 ad. 3m translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[531]II-II q. 64 a.6, translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[532]II-II q. 64 a.2 ad. 3m translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[533]II-II q. 64 a.1 translation from the 2001 edition of the Supreme Theological CD Rom, ESD

[534]IIª-IIae q. 64 a. 2 co. translation taken from the 2001 edition of the Somma Theologica on CD Rom, ESD

[535]E. Colom and A. Rodríguez-Luño, “Chosen in Christ to be saints.”, I, Ed. Edusc 2003, p. 209

[536]See HB Merkelbach “Summa Theologiae Moralis”, Desclée de Brouwer, Brugis - Belgica, 1962, II, p. 362

[537]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 63

[538]E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 74

[539]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, p. 451 n. 795; PL 215, 1512; Letter of Innocent III, “to Durand of Huesca and his brethren by him,” 5 July 1209; Regesta XV, XII.69; translated in HHM, 226–28 (Cf. E. Christian Brugger “Capital punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition” University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014 p. 104

[540]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1272

[541]Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 n. 1483

[542]Leo XIII “Pastoralis Officii” 12.9.1891, www.vatican.va, https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/it/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091891_pastoralis-officii.html, cfr. Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n.3272

[543]See H. Lio "Poena mortis" in "Dictionarium morale et canonicum", Officuum Libri Catholici, Catholic Book Agency, Romae, 1966, III p. 678

[544]St. Thomas Aquinas "Sum against the Gentiles", lib. 3 chap. 146 n. 7 and 8 Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, Turin, First edition eBook: March 2013

[545]John Paul II "Speech to the Officials and Lawyers of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota for the inauguration of the judicial year" of 21.1.2000, www.vatican.va, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ii / it / speeches / 2000 / jan-mar / documents / hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana.html