An Austrian educator is accusing Pope Benedict of “premeditated mass murder” for supporting church doctrine against contraception – and says he should be executed.
“The pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death,” wrote Richard Parncutt, a music teacher at the University of Graz, Austria.
Parncutt must have an affinity for recommending the death penalty, as WND reported only a day earlier that Parncutt was labeled the “Green Weenie of the Year” for also recommending in a blog post that those who don’t believe in global warming should be executed.
Now, according to a report from CampusReform.org, Parncutt also has put the pope down on his list of those to be eliminated.
The report said Parncutt wrote, “I am talking about the current pope, because his continuing refusal to make a significant change to the church’s position on contraception will certainly result in millions of further unnecessary deaths from AIDS in the future.”
The Catholic church believes – and teaches – that using contraception is a mortal sin and it is discouraged. There are those who blame that position for populations in Africa who don’t use condoms, and where AIDS is spread.
CampusReform cited Parncutt’s explanations that he doesn’t routinely support the death penalty for criminals such as mass murders, because it is “barbaric” and “racist.”
“Even mass murderers should not be executed,” he wrote. But he said those who are “responsible” for other casualties fall into a different category.
CampusReform also cited Parncutt’s claim the Catholic church is “racist” because AIDS is rampant in Africa and “those dying from AIDS are predominantly black.”
WND had reported just a day earlier on the global warming issue.
Parncutt was called the “Green Weenie of the Year” by an influential blog written by several attorneys who also have been featured in National Review, The Weekly Standard and The American Enterprise.
The blog said, “The winner of Power Line’s coveted first annual Green Weenie of the Year Award goes to Prof. Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria.”
“He actually thinks global warming ‘deniers’ deserve more harsh treatment than Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who killed 77 people in 2011 (in a country with tough gun control, incidentally),” wrote Steven Hayward.
Hayward is the Thomas Smith Distinguished Fellow at the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University in Ohio, and he directs the new honors program in political economy. He’s also the William Simon distinguished visiting professor at Pepperdine’s Graduate School of Public Policy.
Hayward cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument.”
But in the original, quoted by Hayward, Parncutt wrote, “In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential G[lobal] W[warming] deniers.”
Parncutt wrote, “GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate…”
He continued with his explanation that while Breivik, the mass murder, should not face the death penalty, “GW is different. With the high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths … the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability to traced to their personal actions.”
Wrote Hayward, “Parncutt, a professor of the psychology of music (really) thinks himself a green version of John Rawls apparently, and posted his extensive case for why the death penalty for climate skeptics would be fully just on his blog… Now that the post actually got read, he’s taken it down, but not before several screen shots were made to preserve it for digital posterity.”