Last I checked, the Pope has no authority over non-Catholics and as far as being in a superior position, again…to a non-Catholic, the Pope is just an ordinary guy.
I was not aware that the man shouting at the Pope was a non-Catholic. I did not have time to read the entire article and don’t have the time now to read it. If you could please kindly quote the section of the article that states that the man who shouted at the Pope was indeed a non-Catholic, I will accept your point as correct. I apologize for not having read the entire article but as I said, I simply do not have the time to do so.
That said, the Pope is a head of state. Therefore, he deserves to at least be treated with the same kind of respect as any other head of state would get.
Wouldn’t you rather see the man rehabilitated?
I would like to see the man rehabilitated, yes. However, I put in what I was thinking at the moment and what I was thinking at the moment was that this man who shouted at the Pope was some sort of rebellious Catholic. Regardless, you are right in that rehabilitation is needed. I still believe, though, that punishment or discipline of some kind is also necessary in a case such as this.
What ever happened to turning the other cheek?
I am not sure what your point is but here is what the Catholic Biblical commentary, the Haydock Commentary, has to say about Matthew 5:39 which is the verse that you are referring to.
Haydock Commentary:
Mat 5:39 Not to resist evil;[6] i.e. not to resist or revenge thyself of him that hath done evil to thee. — Turn him the other cheek. Let him have also thy cloak. These are to be understood as admonitions to Christians, to forgive every one, and to bear patiently all manner of private injuries. But we must not from hence conclude it unlawful for any one to have recourse to the laws, when a man is injured, and cannot have justice by any other means. (Witham) — what is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge; but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ, nor St. Paul, turn the other cheek. (St. John xviii. and Acts xxiii.) (Challoner) — Hence also the Anabaptists infer, that it is not lawful to go to law even for our just rights; and Luther, that Christians ought not to resist the Turks. (Bristow)
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I imagine that there were many thousands of witnesses to what this man did. There is more than likely no need to prove this man’s innocence. In all likelihood, his guilt has already been determined. That said, I do not and cannot know for sure whether that is true or not but I seriously doubt that the Vatican police would have acted prematurely. As I said before, I trust that what the Vatican’s police have done is perfectly fine.
We already know that the man was forcibly removed from the crowd and this is perfectly justified because of the fact that this man may have had a malicious intent and may have intended violence against the Pope. That said, I do not know if he did or not but it is always possible. The point is that the safety of the Pope could have been assumed to have been in immediate danger and therefore the appropriate action was taken in order to protect him.
Instead, all I read is
PUNISHMENT.
Perhaps I should have used the term “discipline” instead. I readily admit that when I read this, I read it all the while assuming that this man was either a rebellious Catholic or an anti-Catholic of some sort that simply wanted to cause trouble. Perhaps I should not have assumed such. I apologize if my assumptions have caused you any grief.
Such as removing the man from the crowd forcibly and then conducting a preliminary investigation to determine whether or not there was any malicious intent involved and then took appropriate action to prevent any further occurrences of this happening in the future.
Finally, I apologize for any misunderstanding or wrong assumptions that I have made or any other offense that I may have caused you unjustly. As I said earlier, I do
not have the time to read the entire article and I do not have the time to get heavily involved in this thread so I am out of here.
If you still feel offended, I apologize. It was not my intent to offend. It was my intent to get my point across that the Pope’s safety must be protected first of all, secondly that the crowd’s safety must be protected, and finally that the intruder’s safety must be protected as well.
Anyway, may God bless you and may peace always be with you. I have to go now.
Holly3278
I trust that the appropriate authorities took the appropriate action.
