Pope REFUSES to wear bullet proof vest for Christmas speech amid ISIS threat

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maryjk said:
A bullet proof vest is not living behind armored plated doors at home 24/7. A vest is a reasonable precaution that all of our uniformed police officers take.

It would be worn under his clothing, so it wouldn’t scare anyone. In fact, most people would have no idea that he was wearing one.
Click to expand...
Depends on what color it is.

Seriously though, he may just not want to deal with the weight of it. It’s an added layer on top of the already heavy and voluminous clothing he wears as part of the clergy. And that’s already a lot to ask an 80 year old man to haul around.

But I stand by what I said earlier. This is simply Pope Francis setting an example we should all follow… by not living in fear and not letting a few unhinged fools in the Levant make him change the way he lives his life of tends his flock.
 
I think it is silly.

It isn’t proving anything, and certainly isn’t going to change any hearts of terrorists.

Does the Pope wear a seatbelt? Why?

Does he brush his teeth? Why?

Does he lock his doors (maybe he doesn’t…)? If so, why?

Does he seek medical care when he needs it? Why?

Choosing to make the claim of “I’m not going to live in fear” at rather arbitrary times, inconsistently, and at the expense of those around you who may now be in danger seems a bit fickle and silly, frankly.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
I think it is silly.

It isn’t proving anything, and certainly isn’t going to change any hearts of terrorists.

Does the Pope wear a seatbelt? Why?

Does he brush his teeth? Why?

Does he lock his doors (maybe he doesn’t…)? If so, why?

Does he seek medical care when he needs it? Why?

Choosing to make the claim of “I’m not going to live in fear” at rather arbitrary times, inconsistently, and at the expense of those around you who may now be in danger seems a bit fickle and silly, frankly.
Click to expand...
That’s the reasoning that US pro gunners use against countries that reject that guns are a basic right for self defense outside of temporary war, so I can see why you think that about the Pope. But we believe that peace begets peace and refuse to live by warmongers rules even if there is the risk they’ll kill us. Many a great martyr could have saved their life by sacrificing their higher principles.
 
LongingSoul said:
That’s the reasoning that US pro gunners use against countries that reject that guns are a basic right for self defense outside of temporary war, so I can see why you think that about the Pope. But we believe that peace begets peace and refuse to live by warmongers rules even if there is the risk they’ll kill us. Many a great martyr could have saved their life by sacrificing their higher principles.
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong. It doesn’t bother me per se, though I feel for those who surround him, but I think the claim that “my trust is in the Lord” rings hollow when likely applied so inconsistently.

I see it on here a lot. Since you mentioned guns, we can use that example. Some claim they would never buy a gun, because they would rather put their trust in God. That is certainly their right (and I do not own a gun either, FWIW). They also use that mentiality to chastize those who (on these forums) choose a gun for protection.

Yet they themselves are guilty of “fear” or whatever they would call it when they buckle their seat belts, lock their doors, or take the medicine. ARe those of us who do those things not trusting in God’s providence?

I think God gave us the faculties and abilities to care for ourselves within the context of the world he has created, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

Likewise, there isn’t anything wrong with not wearing protection, wearing a seat belt, or taking medcine, I suppose. I just see the supposed message being applied inconsistently.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Likewise, there isn’t anything wrong with not wearing protection, wearing a seat belt, or taking medcine, I suppose. I just see the supposed message being applied inconsistently.
Click to expand...
Or motorcycle or bike helmets. But depending on where you are, wearing helmets & seat belts are the law.

I don’t think the Pope is being inconsistent. One can’t have a dialogue with a disease, or even someone in another car who is about to hit you. The Pope can have a dialogue with those who want him dead. He can tell them by his actions that he is not afraid of them.

True - they might still kill him. But that’s a part of Catholic/Christian culture, to be willing to die for one’s faith. St. Maria Goretti was declared a saint in part because she didn’t try to save her own life. St. Gianna Molla chose to die rather than kill her baby.
 
Bonnie said:
Or motorcycle or bike helmets. But depending on where you are, wearing helmets & seat belts are the law.

I don’t think the Pope is being inconsistent. One can’t have a dialogue with a disease, or even someone in another car who is about to hit you. The Pope can have a dialogue with those who want him dead. He can tell them by his actions that he is not afraid of them.

True - they might still kill him. But that’s a part of Catholic/Christian culture, to be willing to die for one’s faith. St. Maria Goretti was declared a saint in part because she didn’t try to save her own life. St. Gianna Molla chose to die rather than kill her baby.
Click to expand...
We are all presuming his motivations, in fairness to the Holy Father. But if what we believe is true, why has he not also dismissed the Swiss Guards and his retinue as well, since this puts their lives in danger, and also, one presumes, we need not show fear to those who wish to do us harm.

And while we cannot have a dialogue with a disease, we can with robbers, burglars, and criminals. Why then do we lock our doors?

Again, I suppose it is the inferred implication that by taking certain precautions, one is not being courageous or trustworthy (and is often espoused in topics of gun use), which I don’t agree with.

People who refuse to use a gun because they’d “rather trust to God’s providence” aren’t looking to make a point to any terrorists (if that is the Holy Father’s goal), they are simply being inconsistent. They may claim to trust in God when it comes to not wanting to use a gun, but they too take medicines, lock doors, and apply safety measures in other areas where they could simply trust their safety to the Almighty (if they actually did believe that…).

Either way, I don’t think the message will in any way make a difference with the healing of terrorist hearts (again, assuming we know his motives in this case), but there’s certainly nothing wrong with his decision, save for the risk it imbues on those around him.

And regarding martyrdom, most examples cited didn’t going looking for it, they simply did not turn their back on it when it presented itself, and they certainly didn’t put others in jeopardy unneccessarily in most cases.
 
“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.” Psalm 20:7
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Don’t get me wrong. It doesn’t bother me per se, though I feel for those who surround him, but I think the claim that “my trust is in the Lord” rings hollow when likely applied so inconsistently.

I see it on here a lot. Since you mentioned guns, we can use that example. Some claim they would never buy a gun, because they would rather put their trust in God. That is certainly their right (and I do not own a gun either, FWIW). They also use that mentiality to chastize those who (on these forums) choose a gun for protection.

Yet they themselves are guilty of “fear” or whatever they would call it when they buckle their seat belts, lock their doors, or take the medicine. ARe those of us who do those things not trusting in God’s providence?

I think God gave us the faculties and abilities to care for ourselves within the context of the world he has created, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

Likewise, there isn’t anything wrong with not wearing protection, wearing a seat belt, or taking medcine, I suppose. I just see the supposed message being applied inconsistently.
Click to expand...
I think that you have assumed that ‘trusting in divine Providence’ is the motive when it isn’t. The Pope wouldn’t go into an ebola ward to hug people for example. Or if there was a war on he wouldn’t leave his fate to Divine Prividence and go out driving around in the popemobile unprotected. It’s not about ignoring natural caution and common sense.

These are people who’s primary aim is to create an atmosphere of fear and division through means of random unprovoked violence. We have to keep pushing back against that goal rather than live within it.
 
(Jokingly) Pope Francis just needs Swiss Guard snipers on top of St. Peter’s Basilica
 
adawgj said:
(Jokingly) Pope Francis just needs Swiss Guard snipers on top of St. Peter’s Basilica
Click to expand...
All joking aside, I have read that there are snipers on duty every time the Pope makes a public appearance in St. Peter’s Square.
 
So, so, many false reports come out about spurious quotes and actions and biographical details of Francis. I seriously doubt this for one reason: no one would be able to tell if he was wearing Kevlar under his vestments if his vestments were as thick as they probably will be in December.

It would not show anyone his bravery by not wearing one, because no one would see it if he did.

Plus, I think the person who said that his staff would be crazy stupid to announce it is right - which is why I doubt that any one actually announced it.

I think what happened here is that Expressuk is just rehashing an old story, from back when Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican’s chief spokesman, whom you think they’d name) said in November that there were no plans, as was rumored, to put the pope in bullet proof vests of different liturgical colors before visiting Africa, because it wouldn’t afford real protection because of how open and accessible he’d be - the small amount of cover wouldn’t be helpful.

So, is he wearing Kevlar? No. But did the Gaurdia probably didn’t ask him to either. If they didn’t put one on him in Africa, I doubt they want one on him in Europe.

This story just sounds so folk-taley to me.
 
Apparently this RA!RA! folktale had earlier incarnations with earlier popes.

chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2004/04/03/rel_410955.shtml#.VnWHfRUrLIU

JPII didn’t refuse the Kevlar his men putatively wanted him to wear either.

Bulletproof vests are not the magic forcefield people think they are…hey, they’re not even technically totally bullet “proof.” Helpful, yes, but, there’s a reason not every president and king wears one all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top