In speeches before the Congress and the UN, the Pope managed to mention Moses, but missed Jesus.

In his address to Congress (Sept. 24) he also managed to call for the global abolition of the death penalty.

This is part of the “seamless garment” approach that ties the contemporary church’s position on capital punishment to its position on abortion.

It was not always so and I’m glad to see that I’m on the same side as Thomas Aquinas on the difference between supporting capital punishment (which I do) and rejecting abortion (which I have done for some time now).

The notion that “respect for life” should compel one to reject both is erroneous.

The taking of life is only a wrong when it is done with intent and in violation of moral (natural) law.

You can kill justly in self-defense, if it will stop someone else killing you or a third-party.

In this too (Anti-) Pope Francis is wrong:

Some say that Bergoglio made a “subtle” reference to abortion when he urged lawmakers to “defend life.” Well, he was not so subtle about the death penalty, was he? …..

…To equate the obligation to defend the life of the innocent preborn with opposition to the death penalty is reprehensible, but is also part and parcel of the late Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life” (the seamless garment) that has long been a bedrock of apostasy among the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America. Karol Wojtya/John Paul II expressed his own opposition to the imposition of the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, in favor of a false concept of “mercy.”

Nevertheless, the just use of the death penalty, imposed upon malefactors adjudged guilty of heinous crimes after the administration of due process of law, is part of the Natural Law. The Angelic Doctor himself put the matter this way in the Summa Theologica:

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).”