Only Dialogue and Peace Can Give World a Future, Affirms Pope

[Arba_Sicula]

shockerfan:

Lets say you walk into a public restroom and catch a man about to rape a child. Do you use violence to stop him, or just try to talk him out of it?

Perhaps my presence alone would be enough to run him off. Those were not the only possible alternatives.

I think the problem you are running into, and I just made this point on another thread, is that the Pope speaks in ideals.

I differ. Popes can be very much in the world and can get their hands as dirty as any of us. What do you think JPII’s involvement with Solidarity in Poland was? Exhortations, telling the Poles to live up to “ideals”? Not at all. He actively participated, though covertly, and with the U.S. in supporting Solidarity and in the eventual overthrow of Communism there. I don’t consider the recent Popes as plaster saints.

 

[Matt25]

Arba Sicula:

Was Matt25 quoting out of context? “Violence, of whatever sort, cannot be a way of resolving conflicts. It mortgages the future severely and does not respect either persons or peoples” appears to me quite straightforward, an unequivocal statement by the Pope, who, I’m certain, is also familiar with the conditions for a Just War if those should ever appear.

As a Cardinal he certainly did he has said “the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.” which deals with the Iraq War fairly straightforwardly. He has also said.

He also said "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a “just war.” zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=34882 during an interview about the Catechism so it is possible he had already considered the issues that Gilliam kindly drew our attention to.

 

[shockerfan]

Arba Sicula:

Perhaps my presence alone would be enough to run him off. Those were not the only possible alternatives.

Perhaps. But you are dodging the point I was making: sometimes violence is necessary (and allowed by the CCC). I pray you are not put in that situation.
Arba Sicula:

I differ. Popes can be very much in the world and can get their hands as dirty as any of us. What do you think JPII’s involvement with Solidarity in Poland was? Exhortations, telling the Poles to live up to “ideals”? Not at all. He actively participated, though covertly, and with the U.S. in supporting Solidarity and in the eventual overthrow of Communism there. I don’t consider the recent Popes as plaster saints.

True, but my point was Popes speak in ideals. Your example is not of JP2 speaking, but of his participation!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Arba Sicula:

A poster on the left, yes. Are only posters on the right to get a pass? I hope not.

Do you think you strengthen your credibility by evading the legitimate objection to your own sarcasm and by evading the reference to the conduct rules?
Ani Ibi:

The objection was not to sarcasm used by posters on both left and right. The objection was to sarcasm used by you.

Arba Sicula:

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

It is your sarcasm in question here. Not those of migratory birds.
Arba Sicula:

Would 5 pages, double-spaced, due on Friday, be suitable?

More sarcasm.
Arba Sicula:

I’d rather that you did not make abrupt demands.

Projection. It is the discussion itself which begs response from you in terms of your understanding of JWD and PDE.
Arba Sicula:

Perhaps better to stick to what he did say.

The point is not whether or not the Pope was quoted accurately. The point is whether or not what the Pope did say was legitimately applied to the discussion.
Arba Sicula:

No, just “not.” Matt’s from the British Isles, I’m from the Isles of New York. We’re not in cahoots.

The point was already made that you aligned your statements with those of Matt.
Arba Sicula:

Did I not say what?

Was it you who said the following, or someone else using the name Arba Sicula?

“Violence, of whatever sort, cannot be a way of resolving conflicts. It mortgages the future severely and does not respect either persons or peoples” appears to me quite straightforward, an unequivocal statement by the Pope, who, I’m certain, is also familiar with the conditions for a Just War if those should ever appear.

Unless you are no longer Arba Sicula, then this is **your **statement and your statement aligns itself with Matt’s statement.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Arba Sicula:

I proposed no “rule.” The citation was from the Pope.

Your interpretation of the Pope’s words proposed a general rule, to wit: that the assertion “violence, of whatever sort, cannot be a way of resolving conflicts” represents a Catholic world view which excludes the following exceptions:

legitimate self-defence
Just War
Arba Sicula:

I did not introduce the notion of the Pope’s bodyguards. It would seem that the person introducing any exceptions would resolve the conflict.

No, you introduced a notion that there are no exceptions to your general rule.

Fix found an exception: the existence of the Swiss Guards at the Vatican. Fix therefore defeated your general rule.

For you to reinstate your general rule, you must now reconcile legitimate self-defence, Just War, and your general rule which by definition cannot be done.

Since it cannot be done, you are then left with when self-defence and Just War are legitimate. To do that you must apply the Principle of Double Effect.

Now you may characterize these realities as ‘abrupt demands’ until the cow comes home. But they stand in reason.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Ani Ibi:

Your interpretation of the Pope’s words proposed a general rule, to wit: that the assertion "violence, of whatever sort,

The Pope said “of whatever sort.” He didn’t express any exceptions. If you have a problem with his generalizing statement, write to him (and this is not sarcasm. The Vatican is not unmindful of comments from the laity.) I took him at his word.

you introduced a notion that there are no exceptions to your general rule.

Not my rule, the Pope’s unequivocal statement.

Fix found an exception: the existence of the Swiss Guards at the Vatican. Fix therefore defeated your general rule.

Not my rule. I cited a direct statement by the Pope.

For you to reinstate your general rule, you must now reconcile legitimate self-defence, Just War, and your general rule which by definition cannot be done.

Again, not my rule, a direct citation from the Pope.

Since it cannot be done, you are then left with when self-defence and Just War are legitimate.

Take it up with the Vatican. I was citing the Pope’s direct statement.

If you find the statement to be overly general, the ambiguity is in the Pope’s statement.