Socialist vs Neocon: Why not nix both?

The Catholic Church has historically written critically on the topic of socialism, such as Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris (1878).  The Pope's words nearly 150 years ago were prophetic, recognizing overbearing government taking the place of what is rightly the family's: 

Even family life itself, which is the cornerstone of all society and government, necessarily feels and experiences the salutary power of the Church, which redounds to the right ordering and preservation of every State and kingdom. For you know, venerable brethren, that the foundation of this society rests first of all in the indissoluble union of man and wife according to the necessity of natural law, and is completed in the mutual rights and duties of parents and children, masters and servants. You know also that the doctrines of socialism strive almost completely to dissolve this union; since, that stability which is imparted to it by religious wedlock being lost, it follows that the power of the father over his own children, and the duties of the children toward their parents, must be greatly weakened. 

And of course, the Democrat Socialists of America make headlines regularly with a platform that consistently promotes objectionable ideas, such as the attacks on the family and atrocities like abortion.

Generally speaking, socialism, similar to communism and marxism as they are used colloquially today, refer to a general overbearing government seizing control of what belongs to the free man.

Today, the average voter is conditioned to view the political parties as a dichotomy. The "democrats" are associated with socialism and the "republicans" are dominated by neocon ideology. Before asking the question "Which is worse?", what if we first ask "Are they really even different?" 

A decent argument could be made that that socialists and neocons are different in the details but not ultimately in the destination.  Let's look at three main attributes native to both socialists and neocons.

REWRITING REALITY

The socialist faction of left wingery has been the driver behind attacks on the family in recent years, to the point that they convinced the public that you can call a man a woman and vice versa. It's rooted in the same lie that the life in the womb isn't really a life. As a result of the language trickery, children have died and young people have had their hormones and bodies permanently compromised. They conditioned the public to believe X is not X. The proposition is that reality can simply be rewritten. This is a poisonous infection that is uncontainable.

The neocons try to rewrite reality too.  

US President Trump openly admitted he avoided using the word "war" to refer to the war against Iran because "war" requires Congressional approval, which Trump did not procure. The administration also claimed to have "stopped" the war briefly and then restarted a new one to avoid the 1973 War Powers Act requiring withdrawal of troops after 90 days. Innocent civilians would likely be alive today had a "war" been correctly called a "war" in the first place.

Trump is also hard to keep up with in distracting posts seemingly renaming every body of water on the planet. He oscillates from Iran has a big scary weapon to they don't have the weapon to he doesn't care what Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kent, the Oman mediator, nor the IAEA say about Iran not having or pursuing such a weapon, etc. It seems intentionally dizzying.

Catholic philosopher Dr. Ed Feser made this observation:

The woke ideological cult demanded that everyone affirm that “Trans women are women” and revise language accordingly, and the Trump personality cult demands that everyone affirm that AI is “super intelligence” and revise language accordingly. BOTH of these cults are the enemy.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has justified the US's unjust war against Iran by "redefining" the key Strait of Hormuz as international waters. Yet prior to this 2026 propaganda, United States official documents explicitly said the Strait of Hormuz "falls within Iranian and Omani territorial waters." This is again no trivial rewrite as the US uses this propaganda to justify it's violation of other countries' sovereignty. 

On this point, Rubio recently claimed: "We would never violate the sovereignty of any country." This is another breed of calling a man a woman. In the past year alone, the US has kidnapped the president of Venezuela without a trial, continues to bomb speedboatmen in the Caribbean extrajudicially, bombed Iran on false pretexts, threatened Denmark over Greenland, bankrolls Israel's genocidal attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, prevented fuel and resources from reaching Cuba in preparation for couping them, bragged of couping Syria by installing a wanted ex al qaeda militant, and multiple other proxy wars, just to name a few of the US violations of other nations' sovereignty. Any one of these shows that Rubio's claim is 180° opposite the truth. 

These are not merely trivial rewrites of reality as the lies were used to justify the bombing of civilians. 

SEIZING THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Socialism calls for control over private industry. But are the neocons any different? 

The US government in the past year has seized control of at least 30 different private companies.

Rep. Thomas Massie mocked Trump's $5,000 vote bribe and Trump government-controlled accounts for youth as socialist actions.  Incidentally, Israeli neocon donors spent millions of dollars to oust Massie. 

Trump himself regularly buys shares in private sector companies prior to issuing government contracts to the company. 

The US under neocon oversight has also seen a massive rise in "flock" and flock-style surveillance cameras, turning the US into a surveillance state like other communist nations that those same neocons lament.

KILLING THE UNBAPTIZED

A hallmark of the left, including the socialist left, is support for abortion. And it only gets more morbid.  This year Massachusetts and Minnesota approved abortion up to birth. 

In a widely-viewed interview with Shawn Ryan, exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger explained how politicians pushing for abortion are influence by demonic forces seeking to kill the unbaptized, intending to forever deprive them of God:

Fr. Ripperger: The reason they are trying to get Baphomet ensconced in a location is that they are trying to get pro-abortion legislation passed or maintained.

Shawn Ryan: What is it with child sacrifice that they want?

Fr. Ripperger: There are several parts to it actually. The first is that it is the killing of an innocent, and the demons get empowered by that. But the other part ... which historically was known in the Catholic Church, which wasn't really talked about too much...elsewhere, which is actually one of the reasons that, in the Catholic Church, if you procure an abortion or help someone to procure an abortion it's actually an excommunicable offense. People say oh it's because you are killing someone innocent. But that's not true. That is an element of it, but the real reason is because of the fact that, as I mentioned, the overarching principle for demons is “anything but God.” And so historically, Alexander VII the Pope, stated that we know of no other means of their salvation — he is talking about children before they have the use of reason. We know of no other means of their salvation other than baptism in re. “In re” is a technical theological term in Latin that indicates they have to be baptized by water. Otherwise their salvation cannot be assured.

With regard to neocons and republicans, they have overseen an increase in abortions despite Dobbs punting the issue back to the states.  The abortion industry simply markets the abortion pill as an easier substitute, which is easy for the industry, since they need less brick and mortar centers, and it still procures a dead child.

The Trump administration and the republican neocon party also celebrate IVF, which statistically produces more abortions per incident due to discarded embryos which number 7-8 embryos per treatment and typically only one selected to survive. 

Finally, the US has been at war against countries in the Middle East for decades. The Iraq war has since been exposed as a travesty based on a false weapon threat. And the current war against Iran has the same fictional threat and easily fails to meet any of the criteria of a just war. On the first day of the 2026 iteration of the Iran war, the US double-tapped (some report triple-tapped) some 120 schoolgirls in Minab and upwards of 168 civilians. On other occasions the US killed in Iran other civilian students, including youth volleyball players. 

As mentioned earlier, the US bankrolls Israel's military capabilities which have been used to genocide thousands of innocent children and civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. The Vatican's Cardinal Parolin, echoed by Pope Leo, to their credit recognized the victim's of Israel's atrocities as "defenseless" civilians.  The UN and multiple international entities have recognized Israel's aggression as having met the definition of a genocide.  

The war victims in Palestine, Lebanon, and Gaza are largely Muslim, who are likely - like the unborn - unbaptized.

CONCLUSION

So are the socialists and neocon politicians of today really different in substance at the end of the day?  Do they each invite lies, tyranny, and death in their own ways?

Vatican should engage SSPX with detailed theological arguments

 The Society of St Pius X, without Vatican permission, proceeded with consecrating new bishops on July 1st 2026. This was done under appeal to a "state of necessity" as described in canon law as an exception to normative ecclesial law.

KEY TAKEAWAY: VATICAN HAS TO ENGAGE CONCERNS 

In their June 2026 Profession of Faith, the SSPX raised concerns about several "modern errors" harming souls in the Church today, such as: naturalism which attacks the necessity of grace, subjectivism, immutability of dogma, false ecumenism, and liturgical attacks, to name a few.

In moving forward with these bishop consecrations, the SSPX frequently referenced the Code of Canon law #1324, which states the penalty of violating a law

"must be diminished or a penance substituted in it's place, if the offence was committed by...one...who acted by reason of necessity. ...in the circumstances mentioned, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae [i.e. automatic] penalty, but may have lesser penalties or penances imposed for the purposes of repentance or repair of scandal.”

That paragraph corresponds to the 1917 Code of Canon law, which says in paragraph 2205:

"Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law."

You see in each case the concept of "necessity" can be a deal-breaker in part or entirely when violating a particular ecclesial law.

Because this exceptional circumstance is described in Canon Law, it is reasonable to expect those who opine on the current SSPX situation to account for that exception, given that the SSPX is appealing to it. A large number of commentators have not done so. Pointing out the normative ecclesial laws is insufficient. An analogous situation would be the obligation a child has to obey his parent. This is normative lest the parent issues an immoral or unfulfillable directive, for example. And pointing out the normative law to honor one’s parents minus the existing context would be insufficient to address such a situation.

Ultimately, the SSPX believes their role in preserving Church Tradition and the Traditional Liturgy is one of serving souls. On May 12, 2026, the SSPX explained how even in the current pontificate, Cardinal Roche wrote that allowing the TLM was a "concession that in no way envisioned its promotion." The SSPX lamented this as one of the Church hierarchy's "modern errors" and therefore it is:

"more necessary than ever to allow the maximum number of souls to benefit from the treasures of Tradition and, given its worldwide expansion, two bishops aged nearly 70 are no longer sufficient to meet the expectations of all the faithful and seminarians."

The problem is neither the Vatican nor the Pope have confronted this the SSPX argument that they are in a state of necessity to proceed with the ordinations. The closest the Vatican has come to addressing the SSPX's contention is an invitation to "dialogue" about what the SSPX is required to believe – not, apparently, to address the SSPX’s concerns about the state of the Church in lieu of Vatican II or otherwise.

Some have criticized the SSPX because they are not the sole order promoting the Traditions they seek to restore to commonplace. Other societies or orders include the ICKSP or the Canons Regular. Yet, given the SSPX’s desire to serve the “maximum number of souls” with Traditional Rites and culture, this criticism falls short that would require the SSPX to be the only such society in order to justify consecrations.

SSPX-VATICAN RECENT TIMELINE 

Let's look at a general timeline of key events.

A February 8, 2026 statement by the SSPX seminary director stated:

"[O]ur Superior General requested an audience with the Pope several months ago. But alas, this audience has still not been granted. He has written several letters to the Pope and, so far, the only response he has received from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is a negative one."

The SSPX requests for meeting with the Pope extend back several years.

Finally, they were able to meet with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fernandez is known for a number of scandalous sexual writings in his past and more recently his heretical opinion endorsing the blessing of same-sex "couples" as “couples” in his work Fiducia Supplicans and since.

On February 12, Fernandez met with the superior general of the SSPX, Fr. Davide Pagliarani. After the meeting, Fernandez invited the SSPX for further "dialogue." Fernandez mentioned that they discussed "certain points" that the SSPX had brought up as far back as 2017, such as the "question of the divine will regarding the plurality of religions." He said "the aim of this dialogue is to highlight, in the topics under discussion, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church..."

Pagliarani responded within a week, rejecting this invitation to "dialogue" on several grounds. Among them are that Fernandez allegedly told them no text of the Vatican II council can be corrected nor the legitimacy of the liturgical reform challenged. Another reason Pagliarani gave is the Vatican’s desire to now "dialogue" instead of approving the consecrations and still offering dialogue. Pagliarani stated: "We have been waiting for seven years... only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional." He also mentioned that Fernandez included publicly made "threats" of schism as part of his communication inviting dialogue. Pagliarani also noted that what is the "minimum requirement" to be believed has already been established in Tradition and isn't something their dialogue can re-evaluate.

Later, Fernandez addressed the SSPX on May 13, 2026 in a 2-paragraph message saying the SSPX "do not have the requisite papal mandate" to ordain bishops.

The communication still lacked engagement with the SSPX's concerns about the Vatican Council or otherwise; nothing about their claim to "state of necessity" to ordain bishops; and no engagement with the SSPX's larger concerns about the state of the Church or "modern errors." Fernandez's statement merely says no, and does not provide any theological satisfaction as to why. A sound confrontation with grievances issued by the SSPX in a manner transparent to the entire Church could have gone a long way. If the Vatican had good reason to deny the episcopal consecrations, it would have been edifying for the entire Church to see that laid out.

For his part, Pope Leo has been mostly silent. During an informal media Q&A, the Pope said, "[The SSPX] refuse to accept some fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with several points of the Second Vatican Council." Yet, he offered no specifics on what these “fundamental” points of the Second Vatican Council are.

On June 29, two days prior to the consecrations, the Pope issued a short letter to the SSPX. He neither engaged with any of the SSPX's concerns. He merely asked them to not commit a "schismatic act" and to "please turn back."

EXCOMMUNICATION IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH 

July 1 came and went and the Vatican quickly issued a statement that the SSPX members were excommunicated and considered schismatic. https://wherepeteris.com/decree-of-excommunication-for-the-sspx/

Even after Fernandez declared the SSPX excommunicated, he issued a statement meant for any priests and lay faithful with the SSPX. Fernandez's statement included the command to "accept the Second Vatican Council." Many have observed: what exactly does that even mean?

There has been no public communication from the Vatican as to why the SSPX request to ordain bishops was denied, nor what these mysterious fundamentals of the Second Vatican Council are that apparently contradict the SSPX's June statement of faith?

It's also worth noting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his election as Pope Benedict XVI, said of Vatican II: 

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest." 

What are we to do with that fact? If Vatican II defined no dogma, then what "fundamental" "points" does it uniquely contain that are apparently so important as to be held lest one risk excommunication?

The SSPX issued a lengthy Profession of Faith in June. If parts of that Profession contradicted Church teaching - whether articulated through Vatican II or otherwise - what were those objectionable parts, according to Fernandez? He never addresses the question.

The faithful are left with three main options here:

One, is to speculate what "points" in the documents of the Second Vatican Council rise to the level of dogmatic requirement of belief? - points that evidentally escaped the notice of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI who said the council issued no dogmas?

Second, is to adopt a cynical belief and presume Fernandez (and the Pope by permission) seek to stifle the ministry of a traditional society to protect the very modernist path the SSPX says is poisoning the Church.

Third, is to acknowledge the complexities of the whole scandal and let the matter play out without drawing any consequential conclusions.

DAMAGE TO VATICAN'S MORAL AUTHORITY 

This lack of theological engagement by the Pope and Vatican officials is significant, particularly when the last two pontificates have so frequently pushed the concept of "synodality" and "dialogue" with everyone on the planet, but not the SSPX. It’s hard to accuse the SSPX of avoiding dialogue when they waited unsuccessfully for several years for papal engagement, issued lengthy detailed theological positions, and were met almost entirely with silence or vague denials.

So the situation the Church is now in, with relation to the SSPX, is that this order and it's members merit decrees of excommunication and schism, but not bishops who promote "LGBT" or who even call to "bless" same-sex "couples" as does Cardinal Fernandez – the very man who is supposed to uphold the doctrines of the Church. We are told the SSPX merits excommunication but not the bishops in China who the rest of the world understands as appointed by the state government. Even this past week a bishop with heretical views on sexuality was appointed bishop of a new ordinary in Germany.

Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons - in an article condemning the SSPX for breaking unity with the Pope - still recognized the Vatican's hypocrisy: 

"Popes meet with every heretical Christian leader on the planet, with promoters of immorality, and with degenerate Hollywood celebrities, but not with the head of a thriving, growing community within its ranks. All because the community supposedly doesn’t “accept Vatican II” (a sin the Vatican will not actually define). If only the Vatican had been so bold over the years in disciplining Catholics who rejected Vatican II’s condemnation of birth control (Gaudium et Spes 51) or the Council’s defense of the necessity of the Church for salvation (Lumen Gentium 14)." 

In their untoward treatment of the SSPX, or even other traditionalists in recent years, while cozying up to numerous persons or groups promoting immorality and outright heresy (like the recent female in the Anglican Church pantomiming as a "bishop"), Vatican officials have been sterilizing their moral authority. Henceforth, some form of "why didn’t you treat the SSPX this generously?" will accompany Vatican officials' future collaborations with anti-Catholic parties.

This decree of schism and excommunication is particularly vexing coming from Fernandez because in October 2025, Fernandez censored the title of "Co-redemptrix" for Our Lady because, according to him, "When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful." Yet, here is Fernandez's decree of schism and excommunication, accompanied by zero explanation, no engagement with the SSPX's concerns, leaving the faithful unclear as to what parts of Vatican II rise to the level of dogma in contradistinction with the SSPX's statement of faith, etc. Under this vague nebula, Fernandez declared a religious order schismatic and excommunicated.

Remember, the only hint Fernandez provided as to why the SSPX is excommunicated and schismatic is that they don’t “accept” unspecified points of Vatican II. Yet, there are plenty of statements from the documents of the Second Vatican Council that many priests disobey, including the Vatican itself at times.

For example, Vatican II confirmed that salvation only exists through the Catholic Church, yet in September 2024, Pope Francis famously said, “Every religion is a way to arrive at God.”

Sacrosanctum Consilium #36 states: "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Yet the Vatican hasn't remotely enforced this directive.

Nowhere does Vatican II call for ad populum posture when the priest says mass facing the congregation, instead of ad orientum as he had for centuries.

One criticism of the SSPX that some traditionalists are making is the timing of the SSPX's consecrations. For example, Dr. Taylor Marshal expressed reservations "about the prudence of doing this this early in the pontificate of Pope Leo." Other traditionalists hedged there criticism as well. In his Crisis Magazine article, Eric Sammons said the SSPX should not have done the consecrations because it set them against the Pope, the source of unity in the Church, however, he said, "I think the pope should have approved the episcopal consecrations in an act of mercy and reconciliation."

What many of the faithful would like to have seen is the Pope or his Vatican representative present a thorough engagement with the SSPX's concerns, to handle the matter with full transparency, in a manner easy to understand.

IS THE DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION AND SCHISM AGAINST THE SSPX VALID? 

There are at least 3 perspectives on this question.

The first argument is YES - that the decree of excommunication and schism against the SSPX is valid because it belongs to the office of the Papacy or his representative to wield this jurisdiction. The Vatican holds this position and have declared the SSPX excommunicated automatically for ordaining bishops without papal permission and thus schismatic for disuniting with the Pope on this matter.

This argument is also predicated on the Papacy as the source of unity throughout the centuries. What complicates this position is that the SSPX openly recognizes Pope Leo XIV. The question is whether their disobedience constitutes disunity with the Pope in the sense it has meant throughout the centuries.

The second argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the SSPX is said to be innocent of the crimes which they are accused of doing. Prior to the declared excommunication/schism, Monsignor Jaime Mercant Simo, professor and doctor in Thomistic Studes, address the questions this way: 

But the "latae sententiae" excommunication will occur, that is, automatic and immediate, right? — From a canonical perspective, yes, but, in my humble opinion, such excommunication will be null; I believe there are sufficient theological and legal-philosophical reasons to conclude this, although I know that a large part of canonists will deny it to me from a purely legalistic viewpoint. However, I think that, in addition to the "state of necessity" being present as the fundamental motive, the "formal reason" for which such a penalty should effectively occur fails, given that there is no objective intention of formal schism nor will a parallel jurisdiction be created, I repeat. 

Why isn't it formally [schism]? — Because, for a "perfect schism" to occur, there must be a clear intention to perform a schismatic act and to establish, with the new bishops, a hierarchical jurisdiction parallel to the one existing in the Roman Catholic Church. Now, in this case, neither one nor the other will happen. 

After Cardinal Fernandez issued his excommunication and schism decree, a number of canon experts opined that the penalty lacks force. Those holding this view include InfoVaticana and Canon of Shaftesbury - a judicial vicar in a major archdiocese.

The Canon of Shaftesbury amplifies what appears to be a relevant canon in the penal process. Canon 1720 states that in a penal process, the ordinary must "inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense..." It seems neither of these requirements were met.

Fernandez, as we have mentioned several times above, has issued no detailed rebuttal nor "proof" of what beliefs the SSPX hold that are objectionable. The generic idea that they must "accept the Second Vatican Council" is not-specific enough to be understood and cannot qualify as a "proof" of impropriety. It follows that the SSPX was not afforded an opportunity for self-defense either.

Others, like EWTN canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray, have observed that Pope Francis had endorsed the SSPX's faculties to hear confessions and preside over marriages. Cardinal Fernandez's decree claims to have revoked those privileges. However, those faculties require papal reversal given that they were issued by a prior Pope.

Related to this second argument is one posited by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who observes that the Church even unto ancient times did not consider an episcopal consecration made without papal approval a schismatic act. Rather it was disobedience given a suspension.

The third argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the one issuing the decree - namely Cardinal Fernandez - is himself a heretic and thus his faculties to issue such a degree were forfeited. This argument would point to something like Fernandez's apparent denial of an objective truth like the objective immorality of same-sex behavior, which he denies in his encouragement to offer a blessing over that objective immorality. Or it could be another of his positions that are considered heretical.

This third argument also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa 2.2.39, who stated: 

"On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid."

This third argument would have difficulty if Pope Leo formalizes the excommunications while no sound case of heresy was established of him. In any case, it is implausible that the Pope would declare Fernandez heretical at this point, and he would be the most fitting one to do it. If this third argument were true, it would foremost beheld in the eyes of God.

AN AVOIDABLE SCANDAL 

This entire scandal could have been avoided on several fronts.

Obviously, the modernist tendencies of the Church have been poisonous for several decades, from liturgical abuses to "cancelled" priests to affronts to dogmatic sexual teaching to contradicting Sacred Tradition. These matters are serious and are the impetus for the SSPX's actions.

Of course, the SSPX, for their part, could have submitted to the Pope's request to not consecrate the bishops, or they could have given the Pope more time, etc. Certainly, the Vatican's failure to give the SSPX a reasonable engagement with problems in the Church today also contributed to any impatience of which the SSPX may be guilty.

The Pope also could have simply approved the SSPX's request for consecrating the bishops. Why was this denied? Because the SSPX had grievances about the trajectory of the Church that were so untenable to Fernandez as to remain unspecified? But that would not explain why Fernandez wouldn't have declared the SSPX schismatic and excommunicated prior to the consecrations. If the Pope (and Fernandez) truly desired the dialogue they claimed to desire, this could have been done just as easily if the SSPX had 4 more or less bishops.

At worst, the Vatican through Fernandez have committed an injustice against the SSPX and the Church throughout centuries of Tradition. At best, the Vatican rightfully sanctioned the SSPX, but their hypocritical in how they treat other clearly heretical clergy is amplified.

Ultimately, the faithful are left with yet another scandal.

If the death penalty violates human dignity, so does a $5 fine

Recently, Pope Leo XIV echoed the sentiment of his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis, on the admissibility of the death penalty. In so doing, he joined Francis' departure from hundreds of Popes and Tradition prior. Other sound articles have examined the Tradition on the death penalty, such as “Two problems with Dignitas Infinita” by Dr. Edward Feser.

What this article will do is examine two aspects of Leo's (and Francis's) argument. 

First: Why appealing to human dignity as a disqualifier of the death penalty, Leo necessarily disqualifies any punishment that is ordinarily an affront to the human person.

Second: A rebuttal to the assertion that the death penalty uniquely deprives the guilty from the opportunity to repent.

HUMAN DIGNITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Pope Leo stated: “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

In saying this, Leo appealed to the right to life that is natural and properly due to the human person. Man, in the image of God, is a moral creature with various obligations and due rights associated with that dignity.

In saying man’s dignity is “inviolable,” Leo implies that a man guilty of, say, murder, is always due his right to life since that is a right due to man naturally.

Leo added: “The right to life is the very foundation of every other human right.”

But if a guilty man retains his right to that which is his right naturally, then by the same reasoning, so too would imprisonment or even a monetary fine violate the guilty man’s dignity. After all, freedom is a right of man naturally. The right to one’s possessions is a right of man naturally.

"The Ten Commandments...bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person." (CCC#2070)

The Catechism section on the 7^th commandment (Thou Shall Not Steal) specifically states man’s right to his own money flows from his dignity:

"In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice...of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor's rights and render him what is his due." (CCC#2407)

And yet, in punishing the guilty, monetary fines are often given. But if man’s dignity is “inviolable” in the context that Popes Leo and Francis have applied, then a monetary fine would violate the seventh commandment as robbery of the guilty man—an affront to his inherent dignity by which he has the right to his own possessions. It would merely be a lesser affront to the guilty man than the death penalty. But it equates to the two latest popes endorsing a lesser sin by their own reasoning.

OBJECTION TO DEATH PENALTY DEPRIVING THE GUILTY A CHANCE TO REPENT

Leo also singled out the death penalty suggesting it was an impediment to repentance. He stated:

“Effective systems of detention can be and have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Therefore, a defender of Pope Leo might argue that the death penalty is different than imprisonment or a monetary fine on this notion that the death penalty deprives the guilty of a chance to repent.

However, not only does the death penalty not deprive the guilty of a chance to repent, but tradition has interpreted the death penalty as a mechanism by which the guilty is moved to repentance. For example:

“They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 3.146)

According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2.2.64.2)

“It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace.  ... because there is hope that the malefactor will be reformed by this punishment.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis 13, 1588)

Even in the case of the execution of one condemned to death, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. It is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the 'good' of life, in expiation of his fault, after he, through his crime, has dispossessed himself of his 'right' to life. (Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, September 14, 1952)

"The sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the condemned person to repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the criminal’s reconciliation with God." (Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., Catholicism & Capital Punishment, First Things, April 2001)

Catholic Morality Check 2026

GK Chesterton said Catholicism “is the only thing that saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.” 

This means a foundation built on Christ—who is truth itself—is able to bypass biases, propaganda, and tribal mentality. Catholicism capacitates one to call out an injustice based on the object of an act, not on whether the culprit is a republican, democrat, man, woman, etc. But we have seen in recent months Catholics or other conservative thinkers that have strayed from such basic principles and logical deduction. They have fallen into a variety of logical fallacies. In many cases they hold positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching in favor of political or other loyalties.

A critique of a so-called conservative or someone thought to be a populist, like Trump was at one point, doesn't equate to an endorsement of other corrupt politicians in the past like Obama or Biden etc. Conservatives were able to specifically identify immoralities during those administrations, from sexual perversions in schools to their own share of corrupt wars. Yet this continues under Trump in various forms. 

There are analyses observing how the occupant of the White House is irrelevant because the system is rather a "continuity of agenda" run by other handlers.  In many ways, Republican versus Democrat is a "boomer" politics that no longer applies. In the following analysis, the betrayals attributed to the Trump Administration are to the extent he and his team are the current vessels carrying out that continuous agenda. 

Gustave Dore, "The Judas Kiss," (detail) ca 1866

IMMIGRATION

Let's start with the immigration issue. As the Catechism teaches, a nation has the right to apply "juridical conditions" to regulate immigration.  The mass inflow of foreign individuals by illegal means in recent years has resulted in a variety of financial and criminal problems, both in the US and Europe. It is an acceptable position to support licit deportation, especially of those who have compounded criminal activity while on America's soil, while still supporting legal migration. 

On the one hand American bishops have been reckless in trying to characterize all migrants as if they met the criteria of being a refugee in need of basic resources. The millions of migrants in the current situation do not all meet this status. The bishops have not been entirely open about this nor have they afforded adequate attention to the Church teaching that a nation has the right to regulate migration, because unfettered immigration is unsustainable.

That being said, many Catholics are conflating the just cause of enforcing proper immigration law with the methods to accomplish that. The Trump Administration has employed federal agents throughout the country, heavily armed, with military vehicles, who are themselves masked. In January 2026, the world witnessed videos of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in Minnesota.  A viewing of both sets of the available video angles of these two incidents reveals that neither victim committed an act that merited lethal force from the masked federal officers. 

Catholics, including Vice President JD Vance, incorrectly described what was evident in the Renee Good video footage. They often built arguments on statements about how you can't assault an officer, yet that didn't happen in this incident. It was disturbing to see how many conservatives—who in the past would have broken down in detail videos like Rodney King or the forensics with Michael Brown—avoid that kind of scrutiny of the evidence in this instance. 

The video footage shows Good turning the wheel of her vehicle away from the eventual shooting officer, who leaned toward the vehicle to shoot once through the windshield and twice through the side window when she was clearly past him. Her turned wheels were consistent with an attempt to drive away.  An examination of the various camera angles of the killing reveal that the officer who killed her was not in danger at any point.  He unnecessarily initiated contact with her windshield while holding a cell phone and pistol. The Department of Justice has a protocol  pertaining to use of lethal force if a perpetrator is using a vehicle as a deadly weapon. This protocol forbids lethal force if simply moving "out of the path" is an option. In this case, stepping aside was obviously an option, because the officer did that as he fired.

Any blocking traffic mischief on the part of Good prior to the killing did not merit lethal force. Many drew attention to Good being in a lesbian relationship or that her "partner" on the scene was verbally taunting. None of this justified lethal force either. The discussion isn't whether or not she is a leftist. The legal responses to mischief or obstruction of a police vehicle were not applied. Lethal force was applied. There would be no such controversy had she been arrested on those grounds or if she had fled the scene and was arrested later.

Many conflated the killing of Renee Good with support for immigration control in general. But this is the sort of politicized thinking that abandons the facts on the ground and adheres to something more tribal. It seems even Catholics were unable to objectively interpret this incident for fear that doing so would somehow be tantamount to supporting illegal immigration or the Democrat party in general when the two positions are not codependent. It is possible to simultaneously think all three of the following: Lethal force was not merited against Good, unfettered immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed, and the Democrat party is full of corruption. 

The Trump Administration and others compounded the problem by their histrionic use of the word "terrorist" to describe Renee Good. It was tantamount to years past when the Left would incessantly brand everything they didn't like racist or sexist, etc., diluting the significance of the words. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called Good's actions "domestic terrorism."  Vice President JD Vance called Good's actions prior to being killed as "classic terrorism." 

The Alex Pretti killing was arguably a worse injustice (Video). He was standing on the sidewalk holding a cell phone. He had a concealed pistol that he was licensed to carry. An ICE agent shoved a female civilian to the ground near Pretti.  Pretti stood over the woman and held up a "whoa" hand toward the agent as he was backing up and turning away. The agent then shoved Pretti in the back. Pretti attempted to pull the woman up. He is then swarmed by agents who disarm him and shoot him multiple times, apparently disarmed. 

Keeping in mind our Catholic faith that measures "object"-ively, even if one wishes to interpret Pretti pulling on the woman as interference with police activity, that does not merit lethal force. Catholics and others also tried to justify the killing of Pretti by pointing to a video of Pretti over a week prior in which he was yelling and kicked out an ICE vehicle's taillight.  However, again, none of this merited lethal force on the day he was shot.

To compound the horror of Pretti's killing, members of the Trump Administration again took to defaming the victim. FBI Director Kash Patel lied to the public in an interview when he said, "You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines (sic) to any sort of protest you want."  The Minnesota carry law has no such restriction.  US Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino took the histrionics to another level, asserting gratuitously that Pretti "approached US Border Patrol agents with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun ... [and] wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement."  Trump official Stephen Miller called Pretty an "assassin."  President Trump recklessly (and incorrectly according to the law) said regarding the Pretti incident, "You can't have guns."  Catholics and any reasonable person who supports Second Amendment rights to self-defense should be scandalized by this entire incident from start to aftermath. 

In both the Good and Pretti killings, it was also disturbing to see how many who profess to be pro-life tribally cheering their deaths. Some even went so far as to use the vulgar taunt FAFO, as if chanting at a sporting event and killing the other "side" equals a touchdown.  Even if these killings had merited lethal force—which they did not—to be pro-life is predicated on the value and dignity of human life. And it is unbecoming to cheer on the killings of individuals based not on some tragic-but-justifiable use of lethal force, but based on a politically motivated support of groundless use of lethal force.  These are the types of mentality that gave rise to the gestapo in the Third Reich, which also operated as a Police State and with immunity. Despite a reasonable desire to address the immigration problem, cheering on federalized police force on the streets, who operate with disguises and immunity, is a recipe for long term disaster.

IMMIGRATION BIG PICTURE

But there is yet a larger picture missed throughout all this. Catholics and others are acting as if the concept of ICE—trying to round up millions of individuals, wearing masks, acting with brutality, and according to the Vice President with immunity —were the only way the immigration problem can be addressed. However, not only are ICE's recent methods paving the way for a Police State intentionally or not, they are not addressing the larger picture. 

Both Trump and a host of conservatives pointed out how politicians were inviting people into the country illegally in order to skew elections with illegal votes or artificial alterations of district populations. 

The people voted for Trump based on his apparent intent to address this broken system. But where are the Administration's efforts—at least as aggressive as what ICE is doing in the streets—to serve justice to those politicians? Where is the Administration's effort to prosecute corporations that were also part of the illegal entry system that exploited the labor illegally? ICE has verbalized threats against the executives running corporations but where are the mass raids on them on any scale?  Where is the Administration's effort to prosecute NGOs, including supposedly Christian ones, that may have been involved in the illegal transportation or harboring of individuals across the border?  How many times during the campaign were we told by Conservatives about the bussing that was going on bringing individuals into the country illegally? 

Furthermore, US sanctions against other nations have—by their own admission—caused civil unrest among those countries' populations.  When done in Latin America, it incentivizes illegal migration, which is then brought to the public as a problem to be solved, even though at every turn, the powers-that-be engineered the whole problem.

Why is there basically zero effort to break the system of the criminal wealthy and elite? These are part of the Swamp Trump incessantly promised to drain. Catholics should not be missing this point. This intentional network is the main source of the problem, not the individuals who accepted their invitation. The current method is tantamount to going after every single drug user in the country instead of going after the dealers. It's not only inefficient but it won't solve the problem. Deportation according to the law is licit, but isn't the root cause.

What's also disturbing is that the Administration shows an awareness that you have to go after the orchestrators of a scheme. On the January protest that occurred inside a church, Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon vowed to go after whoever "paid for, coordinated, or participated" in the crime. Great. Why are they not doing the same with those who coordinated the immigration problem in the first place?

VENEZUELA

Catholics and others might consider a refresher on Just War Theory, including: 

• grave and certain damage from an aggressor
• exhausted diplomacy or alternatives to war
• prospect of success based on the previous
• result must not produce greater evil than original condition

Many Catholics were okay with the indiscriminate bombing of Caribbean speedboats without knowing the identity of the boatmen, had no ability to reach the American border (that Trump said his Administration "closed" in February 2025) because they were thousands of miles away in a small speed boat. 

Furthermore, the Administration kidnapped Maduro, the president of Venezuela, based originally on the narrative that Venezuela was, according to Trump, killing 25,000 people every time a speedboat from there supposedly came to America with fentanyl. Yet, in the Trump Administration's own DEA National Drug Threat Assessment report from May 2025, Venezuela does not appear once under the fentanyl section and only once in unrelated street trafficking. 

The fentanyl narrative then morphed. The US tried to justify Maduro's kidnapping because he was the ringleader of a drug gang called Cartel de los Soles. But the Adminstration subsequently had to admit no such organization still exists.  

Multiple reports in October 2025 said Maduro had offered the US oil deals according to what the Trump Administration was demanding, but was refused. After having refused Maduro's offer, Rubio later said Maduro was "simply not a guy you can make a deal with." 

The entire affair failed to meet Just War's main criteria of no immediate or certain threat and no exhaustion of diplomacy. 

Later, Rubio also denied that the kidnapping or bombing of speedboats constituted an "act of war," which would require Congressional approval. Despite an "armada" of US military involved for months on Venezuela's doorstep, including for the kidnapping, Rubio argued that the kidnapping only took 4-some hours and was a "law enforcement" operation, so it couldn't be an act of war.  The operation killed over 80 Venezuelans and Cubans stationed there. Senator Rand Paul pointed out the nonsensicality of Rubio's testimony,  positing how the kidnapping would have been perceived by the US if it had been done to the US, and concluding: "Of course it would be an act of war."

Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons succinctly described the matter:

The president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted and captured... It is Orwellian to claim this was merely a law enforcement function. We literally had our military enter another country without invitation - that is, by the way, called an invasion. They captured and abducted the head of state and then took him to our country. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is. Okay. If somebody did that to us — if some other country came in, went after Trump, and got out — would we not think that's an act of war? There's not a single American who wouldn't think that's an act of war. 

Sammons also pointed out how Catholic just war theory "cuts through the propaganda." 

In another interview, Rubio let out the underlying motive for Venezuelan regime change. It wasn't to protect Americans or stop drugs or any of the original narratives. It was to control the oil and prevent China, Russia, and Iran from lawfully buying it as they had done.  The US wanted to control those purchases, which is not a grave matter justifying a war. It's violation of other nations' own sovereignty. This isn't much different than the mobster who says "I control this street corner" and takes over the shop infringing on the mobster's profits.

IRAN

Catholic professor and philosopher Dr. Edward Feser expounded on why US getting involved in war with Iran failed to meet Just War theory criteria.  Reasons include specious claims that have persisted for decades that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that Middle East regime changes by the US have consistently resulted in a worse outcome for the region.

In June 2025, the US involved itself in war against Iran on the false premise that Iran had or was days away from having a nuclear weapon and was about to use it unjustly. The United States National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard testified about 12 weeks prior to the US-Israel bombing of Iran that "Iran is not building a nuclear weapon..."

Also in June 2025, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who functions as a UN inspector of nuclear capabilities, said, “We did not have elements to prove that Iran had a plan or a systematic effort towards a nuclear weapon.”

In collaboration with Israel, dozens of Iranian officials were assassinated on June 13, 2025.  The Trump Administration then directly bombed Iranian facilities, supposedly containing imminent nukes. 

After the whole fiasco, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Trump had dealt the "final blow" to Iran's nuclear program  That "final blow" lasted all of 6 months as the Trump administration has again reignited tensions with Iran. Currently, a US military armada has been sent to the region on the pretext of the exact same "nuclear weapons" matter they claimed they solved months earlier. 

Saying the quiet part out loud again, Rubio admitted that the US used their aggression against Iran to pressure China who purchased oil from Iran as well as Venezuela. 

GAZA

The worst war of them all is the US's collaboration in the genocide perpetrated by the State of Israel against the people of Palestine. After Israel had imposed two years of disproportionate and merciless aggression against the people of Gaza, the Vatican's Cardinal Parolin issued a statement:

"[T]he war waged by the Israeli army...disregards the fact that it is targeting a largely defenceless population...buildings and homes are reduced to rubble. ...countries truly capable of exerting influence have so far failed to act to stop the ongoing massacre." 

Pope Leo, when asked about the interview in which Parolin made his comments, said, "The Cardinal expressed the Holy See's opinion very well." 

Conservative estimates of 70,000+ civilians, including many children, have been slaughtered at the hands of Israeli attacks or starvation tactics in the past 2+ years.  Israel has conceded this number, suggesting the total is much higher.  Given the number of bodies beneath the rubble, and given that Israel is reported to have used thermobaric weapons that can vaporize victims, some victim total estimates are over 200,000 . 

In September 2025, the United Nations issued a report, stating, "“It is clear there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the Genocide Convention.”

The landscape is demolished. 

WE CANNOT STOP TALKING ABOUT GAZA. The US is complicit. Republicans and democrats funded, supported and empowered Israel to do this. We have a choice America! It’s time we put Americans first! It time we put humanity first! https://t.co/gDisONlK5w pic.twitter.com/jAwclGSQJi

— Anthony Aguilar (@AnthonyAgu88102) February 1, 2026

Colonel Anthony Aguilar, a first-hand witness of the scene, described it as something out of the dystopian Terminator films.  In January, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner spoke of plans to build resorts on the demolitioned landscape. 

Not only has President Trump collaborated in these atrocities but he (i.e. his handlers) appointed Israel—the perpetrator of atrocities in Gaza—to the "Board of Peace" overseeing Gaza going forward (in addition to concerns this is also a scheme to supplant the UN). In November 2025, Trump called for Israeli PM Netanyahu to be pardoned, repeating the demand in December and again in February 2026 when he criticized Israeli President Herzog for not issuing the pardon yet.  Trump also praised Netanyahu—the PM of the political nation responsible for the maiming (graphic warning) and deaths of thousands of innocents and children—for being a "wartime president who’s a hero."  This is arguably the worst holocaust of the 21st century, ironically perpetrated by Israel, and Trump is praising the perpetrator as a "hero." 

Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio, another professed Catholic, has innumerable times espoused a "stand with Israel" policy.  A leaked 2015 email revealed Larry Ellison—a billionaire and frequent lobbyist for the state of Israel—said "Marco will be a great friend for Israel.”  As Secretary in 2025, Rubio specifically protected Israel's atrocities in Gaza when he condemned  the International Criminal Court's upholding of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. 

At one point in August 2025, the Trump Administration threatened to withhold federal funds from any US State that engaged in protest against Israel's war on Palestinians.  In February 2026, the Trump Administration was involved in trying to oust Carrie Prejean Boller, a Catholic, from the so-called "Religious Liberty" Commission for declaring that Catholics have a right to speak out against Zionist ambitions in the Gaza genocide. Israel has meanwhile put millions of dollars into media control and openly have called for censorship of opposition. 

It will be very difficult for Trump to politically or morally escape his reputation as a collaborator in the worst genocide of the century. 

EPSTEIN

Addressing one atrocity after another brings us to the Epstein coverup. Relating to the last topic, Epstein was also apparently working for or with Israel's Mossad intelligence division. 

 At the behest of congressmen Thomas Massie (who Trump attacks regularly) and Ro Khanna, multiple files have been released, albeit heavily redacted. (The link references in the following sentence contain disturbing descriptions.) The public has learned that there is indeed a sex and child trafficking movement among the world's elite that apparently involves cannibalism, pedophilia, torture, in addition to major political leverage exercised through the Epstein network on the lives of citizens globally. Multiple global politicians have already resigned from their posts after the recent exposé.  

Both AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have arguably perjured themselves or engaged in public fraud when they denied that the Epstein files had any evidence of criminal activity or minor trafficking. Trump, prior to his second term, spoke of intent to release Epstein files.  Yet, even in recent weeks, he continued to thwart Massie's efforts to release the files and maintained they were a "Democrat hoax." 

During a February 2026 congressional hearing on the Epstein files that expose some of the horrors, Bondi was asked about why names were redacted or why there have been no indictments. Bondi gave devious non-sequitur answers, asking instead why wasn't the previous corrupt AG asked these questions or why not talk about the stock market?  AAG Dhillon, a supposedly pro-life lawyer, said she was "so proud" of Bondi's testimony that blatantly thwarted efforts to expose crimes against children, among other crimes. 

Bondi's testimony, had it been given by a common citizen in a court of law, would have resulted in that citizen immediately held in contempt and taken out in handcuffs.

The nightmarish crimes continue without justice. The network of elites orchestrating the crimes remain in power throughout the world, influencing policy, trade, and wars. When asked about the Epstein network, Trump's press secretary Karoline Leavitt—also a professed Catholic—said in February 2026 "We're moving on from that." 

CONCLUSION

Catholics, conservatives, or anyone of good will should not shy away from identifying moral decadence based on the object of the act, not who is saying it. They should not shy away from acknowledging Trump has been a monumental betrayer on his lack of prosecution of the Swamp involved in the immigration problem, his failed "no wars" promises, his failed Epstein justice promises, etc. 

There's often a philosophical or sci-fi scenario where people imagine going back in time and what they would do to stop various horrors. Those horrors are today, from crimes against children, wars, legal injustices, genocide, abortion holocaust too. They are here and must be first recognized before they can be addressed. And not enough are recognizing the crimes. Cling to the Catholic faith to cut through the noise.