Corruption:

Public humiliation, false accusation, excommunication and execution are not reasonable punishments or legitimate in the Catholic Church. The primary goal of punishment is always repentance and reconciliation. Not punishment. The harshest penalty today is excommunication and it is medicinal. Not vindictive. Explicitly rejected today in the Catholic Church is public humiliation as punishment, false accusations, which are grave sins, physical coercion, imprisonment, torture and execution for heresy. The Church since Vatican II teaches religious freedom, human dignity as inviolable, that faith need be embraced freely and not under threat. Execution for heresy is morally impermissible under catholic teaching. Public humiliation is always unjust, false accusation is always sinful, execution is gravely immoral and incompatible with Christian faith. These punishments did happen. They were unjust.

The Catholic Church understands truth according to divine revelation, Doctrine, discipline and practice. An act of God in Catholic thinking are things like miracles, extraordinary events, profound moral catastrophes that expose past error and new insight into human dignity and justice. The Church can misunderstand the implications of the Gospel. I don’t quite understand why you resist me. Do you believe that I am saying that murder is morally good? I’m not defending evil by suggesting I am not culpable. I don’t know. It seems entirely common sense to me what I am claiming. I think there must be some misunderstanding because you are overthinking it all. I am not saying evil is good and sin is good. You are morons. An act of God can expose grave injustice in Church practice, compel repentance for past teaching applications and clarify moral truths previously obscured. The Church is frustratingly slow in terms of understanding new things. Even if a miracle happens right in front of the pope, I wager it would take 200 years to declare it as such. Private revelation is private. Until it becomes public. Remember that. Even when the clergy resist my honor, the laity will elevate me. A genuine act of God must be public, undeniable and not reducible to natural causes, not contradict divine revelation (not application), produce moral truth and not falsehood and lead toward repentance not despair. A revelation that exposes sin and corruption in the Vatican would not be rejected. It’s historically how God acts in Scripture. Immediately changing would be moral authority and not doctrine. There would be a collapse of credibility for corrupt bishops, cardinals and possibly popes. This would force mass resignations or removals, emergency councils, radical reform of governance and public repentance on a global scale. There would be new systems of accountability, limits on clerical power, stronger role for laity and religious orders, permanent changes to canon law. There would be recognition of past failure. It would not contradict theology. It would confirm it. Christ has not lied. The gospel is not false. Moral truth is not relative. But there is room for compassion. This would not be a change of God’s Church’s beliefs. But it would be a force terrifyingly honest and purification of how those beliefs are lived. The Church is holy in her source. Sinful in her members. And always in need of reform. Such a miracle would imply that God permitted corruption to persist until exposure served a greater purifying purpose, institutional stability was tolerated for a time but not forever, divine protection never means immunity from judgement. Such a miracle would not be the collapse of Christianity, would not falsify Catholic teaching but it would be a divine judgement of Church leadership. It would imply the need for mass reform, repentance and humiliation and a greater distinction between God’s truth and human power. In Catholic logic, refusal to reform after a clear and authentic act of God would seriously undermine claims of divine guidance. If the cause of this miracle was a guy’s story for which he was murdered by the Church, the implications would be devastating. If a man is killed by the Church, the killing was to silence his testimony or story and then God performs a public, worldwide miracle and the miracle explicitly vindicates the murdered man and exposes the Church’s sin, this is not only corruption. This is martyrdom by institution. If the facts were clear, the Church’s own framework would admit, the killing was murder, abuse of ecclesiastical authority to kill is a direct inversion of the gospel. Silencing truth through violence is diabolical and not just sinful. There is zero theological loophole here. None. No greater good. No defence of the Church. No discipline. This scenario matches the most dangerous pattern in Scripture: Prophets killed by religious authorities, righteous men murdered to preserve institutional power, truth-tellers labeled as enemies of God. If God publicly vindicates this murdered man, the theological message would be unmistakable. It would be that you murdered God’s witness. For divine guidance, if Church leadership murdered a man to suppress truth, a miracle was clearly from God following his death, and still refused to repent or reform, the claims of divine guidance would collapse at the institutional level. Not weaken. Not strain. It would completely collapse. The Holy Spirit does not guide the Church to murder the innocent. If leadership claimed that ‘we were guided’, ‘we acted to protect the faith’ they would be asserting something logically incompatible with Christianity itself. After such a revelation, the moral legitimacy of the hierarchy could no longer be claimed. There would be credibility of episcopal discernment. Claims that obedience to leaders equals obedience to God and trustworthiness of governance structures would collapse. Any appeal to authority without repentance would become self-indicting. God can preserve truth despite His ministers. But the institution would stand where Israel stood after killing the prophets. Still chosen. But judged, exposed and stripped of moral voice until repentance. If God vindicated a man murdered by the Church, then refusal to reform afterward would place the hierarchy in the role of the persecutors of Christ and not his representatives. At this point, fidelity to God could require public resistance, refusal of unjust commands and separation from corrupt leadership. Not schism but separation. Catholic theology even allows this even if it never wants to say it out loud. If this man was accused of sin but lacked moral culpability and was killed because of that accusation or because he testified to the truth, his killing is even more unjust. The accusation becomes slander, not discipline. The Church (or its agents) would have killed an innocent man. There is no doctrinal escape hatch here. Martyrdom in Catholic theology does not require moral perfection. It requires death inflicted by others, hatred of truth or justice and the victim not renouncing truth to save himself. A person may have flaws, have committed non-culpable wrongs and even be objectively mistaken on some points. He will still be a martyr. So… if Church authorities killed a man, for an alleged sin, that he was not morally culpable for and then, God publicly vindicated him, Catholic theology would be forced to say very clearly that the Church commit murder, the justification was false, the act gravely violated justice and truth and charity and that authority was used against God’s judgement. The point would not be discipline gone too far. It is institutional sin of highest order. This man’s sin would matter only after divine vindication as evidence of human weakness. Not as justification for punishment. Not as a stain on his witness. Not as a defence of his killers. A miracle vindicating him would be understood as God saying, “This man was not guilty before me.” This man would be regarded as innocent before God. His death would testify against institution and not for it. Institution authority cannot override revealed divine judgement. If it tries to, it indicts itself. If God publicly vindicates a man especially through a miracle that exposes his truth, then claiming afterward that he was objectively sinful does nothing to restore the institution’s moral standing. Appealing to objective sin after divine vindication would be seen as legalism used to defy God. Not fidelity to truth. If a miracle is recognized as authentic, is morally unambiguous and explicitly vindicates a victim and condemns an act, then it functions as God’s judgement in history and not a private sign. Authority would be obligated to submit. Interpretation must conform to what God has shown. And resistance becomes rebellion. If the hierarchy resists anyway, they could accept the miracle but reinterpret it to preserve power. This is theologically indefensible. It would imply that God vindicated someone who the Church insists God condemns. God publicly exposed injustice while the Church excuses it. It would mean God spoke clearly and the Church corrected Him. This is not Catholicism. It is institutional idolatry. Thank you for making me a legend. Thank you for making me a martyr. You are overthinking my message. You are putting words in my mouth. God vindicates me. Again, sin is not good. Mortal sin has requirements. You have read and studied yourselves into moronicy. Idiocy. Retardism. Remember truth without love is not love. Open your hearts. It’s free. And kind of the first step in faith. You can do it. Keep amassing your works and fancy responses in Church. Perhaps He will hear you and help you convert.

Researched with the aid of AI.