Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

[Tbrightson]

To illustrate the error of your interpretation, suppose the address had been about avoiding excessive reliance on wealth. If the pope had said “You cannot put your ultimate trust in wealth”, you would not take that as a condemnation of bankers and merchants, would you? Of course not! But that is exactly the kind of thinking that causes you to take from “You cannot put your ultimate trust in weapons or the people who make them or use them”, the mistaken interpretation that being a weapons maker makes you evil. I’m sure the pope would get a good laugh out of these wild interpretations of his address.

Your missing something:

“You cannot put your ultimate trust in weapons or the people who make them or use them”,

Would be comparable to:

“You cannot put your ultimate trust in wealth or the people who make it or uses it”

And as you see, the slam is not on just wealth but on the people as well…that is …ahem…UNCHARITABLE

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If the only intent is to make money, with the knowledge that they result in significant damage and loss of lives for no good/just reason, isn’t that just turning a blind eye?

Really?! Is this what you really believe goes on in the arms industry?

I’ve known quite a number of people involved in the arms industry in one capacity or another and althought they make money from it (i.e. earn a salary), they are by far the most patriotic people I know. They are very much concerned with how the weapons they build are used.

But I do know of a firm that probably fits your description:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_Industries

Responsible for every possible use? That’s not possible.

Responsible for considering the possibility of pointless suffering and loss? Why not?

These are primarily the decision of politicians, not arms manufacturers. Arms are typically bought long before they are used. Generals don’t go shopping for tanks and warplanes with the intent of invading their neighbor.

This is the dog that didn’t bark: nobody seems the least bit concerned with politicians who wage war.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No, you have not actually disagreed with the pope. You have disagreed with a fictitious caricature of the pope, ascribing meaning and interpretation to his words are just not justified. His address to the young people in Turin was not about the evils of manufacturers of weapons. Read the whole transcript and see what he was really talking about.

To illustrate the error of your interpretation, suppose the address had been about avoiding excessive reliance on wealth. If the pope had said “You cannot put your ultimate trust in wealth”, you would not take that as a condemnation of bankers and merchants, would you? Of course not! But that is exactly the kind of thinking that causes you to take from "You cannot put your ultimate trust in weapons or the people who make them or use them", the mistaken interpretation that being a weapons maker makes you evil. I’m sure the pope would get a good laugh out of these wild interpretations of his address.

I genuinely hope that you are correct but I fear that the media has a better handle on Pope Francis than his apoligists.

The problem is that Pope Francis has a terrible habit of employing straw men. Nobody in their right minds thinks that owning weapons will protect them from old age. But they can, of course, protect from the violence of others. They have a legitimate role in a fallen world.

Those who try to defend Pope Francis seize upon the absurdity of his scenarios but those who are cheering him on read him as condemning by hyperbole. (Some perhaps even believe in the straw men.)

 

[Brendan]

Apparently when you manufacture a weapon, you are responsible for every possible use of that weapon…ever. :

And I wonder how much the manufacturer of an automobile responsible for every possible use? If a car was sold to a priest, but was stolen and killed someone in a high speed chase, what level of culpability would the manufacturer of the car have?

I suppose it would be severe, looking at some posters logic

 

[EIF5A]

Really?! Is this what you really believe goes on in the arms industry?

I’ve known quite a number of people involved in the arms industry in one capacity or another and althought they make money from it (i.e. earn a salary), they are by far the most patriotic people I know. They are very much concerned with how the weapons they build are used.

But I do know of a firm that probably fits your description:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_Industries

These are primarily the decision of politicians, not arms manufacturers. Arms are typically bought long before they are used. Generals don’t go shopping for tanks and warplanes with the intent of invading their neighbor.

This is the dog that didn’t bark: nobody seems the least bit concerned with politicians who wage war.

I was thinking along the lines of weapons of mass destruction…

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) Web-based firearm trace request and analysis system, eTrace, enables law enforcement officials to collaborate with ATF to track the path of recovered weapons from the manufacturer or importer though the distribution chain to the first retail purchase. Over 70 percent of the ninety-nine thousand weapons recovered by Mexican law enforcement since 2007 were traced to U.S. manufacturers and importers. Likewise, 2011 eTrace data for the Caribbean indicates that over 90 percent of the weapons recovered and traced in the Bahamas and over 80 percent of those in Jamaica came from the United States. The ATF has not released data for Central America, but the numbers are likely similar.
…

Gotta check your stats, the numbers you’re giving for Mexico have been discredited. The Mexicans seized 99,000 weapons. Out of that, they requested the ATF to track a much smaller number (can’t remember the exact number) ~2,000, of those ~1,400 were from the US. Politicians in the US continuously cite the 70% number as if it’s applicable to the total number of weapons seized, it isn’t. Only the sub-set the Mexicans actually asked the US to trace (the rest being already identified as having come from European/Mid-East black market; and weapons sold to the Mexican government which got to the cartels either through soldiers/LEOs deserting with them or corruption).

Never seen the numbers for Jamaica and Bahamas and whether they ask the ATF to trace all, most, or only a small portion of weapons recovered.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Or maybe you did not mean how this sounds as this does sound as if you are attempting to threaten me? :dts:

That was up to 2010. You don’t happen to have access to more current figures by any chance? Proportionately, government spending on social reform should be immensely high, compared to spending on arms. What would be more interesting to see, is WHERE and HOW more recent spending figures have been distributed on social reform, and the results of such. You probably don’t have access to that info. though. Considering the whole U.S. spying scandal, it would be understandable to assume, that those figures were misleading.

Here’s a pretty cool on-line tracker of the US debt- Federal, States and personal. If you put your cursor over each block it indicates where they’re obtaining the information. Note defense spending vs domestic/entitlement. Then look at the unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare.

usdebtclock.org/

The US isn’t really paying for any of this. We (as in my generation) are paying for only a very small portion of assistance to the poor— we’re generating massive debt to pay folks today which will have to come from future generations. Think Greece…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was thinking along the lines of weapons of mass destruction…

It’s hard to think of an industry that is more closely regulated than nuclear weapons.

But this perfectly illustrates my point: is anyone buying nuclear weapons with the intent to immediatly use them? Not even North Korea is that crazy. So upon what basis can you hold the weapon manfucturer responsiblef for their use?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your missing something:

“You cannot put your ultimate trust in weapons or the people who make them or use them”,

Would be comparable to:

“You cannot put your ultimate trust in wealth or the people who make it or uses it”

And as you see, the slam is not on just wealth but on the people as well…that is …ahem…UNCHARITABLE

You are being way too sensitive on behalf of the weapons manufacturers. I doubt if they themselves would consider it an insult. In fact they would probably agree that you should not put your ultimate trust in them. They would get a laugh out of this discussion too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I genuinely hope that you are correct but I fear that the media has a better handle on Pope Francis than his apoligists.

Wow, that’s a switch. Usually what I hear on this forum is that the secular media is not to be so trusted.

The problem is that Pope Francis has a terrible habit of employing straw men. Nobody in their right minds thinks that owning weapons will protect them from old age. But they can, of course, protect from the violence of others. They have a legitimate role in a fallen world.

Criticizing his exposition technique is very different from criticizing his true beliefs. I would have no problem with the former. But what I read in this thread is the latter.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Wow, that’s a switch. Usually what I hear on this forum is that the secular media is not to be so trusted.

Criticizing his exposition technique is very different from criticizing his true beliefs. I would have no problem with the former. But what I read in this thread is the latter.

I prefer to criticize what the media reports that he said. Did he mean that? I dunno. I don’t care.

There are plenty of others here who obviously believe he meant what the media reports him to have said because they approve of it and I can’t, in all honesty, say they are wrong.

When this first started happening I, too, believed he was being misquoted or mistranslated. (Does anyone really believe that people are starving because of food waste?) But the pattern suggests that he is not being (significantly) misrepresented in the media.

Oh, well.

 

[EIF5A]

It’s hard to think of an industry that is more closely regulated than nuclear weapons.

But this perfectly illustrates my point: is anyone buying nuclear weapons with the intent to immediatly use them? Not even North Korea is that crazy. So upon what basis can you hold the weapon manfucturer responsiblef for their use?

…I was thinking more along the lines of military aircrafts and bombers costing billions of dollars…

Why do they even make it in the first place? Because people will use them to make things explode — they’re not decorative items or backyard hobbies. And sometimes people die. Sometimes these people are enemies, sometimes innocent people.

There will always be hatred in the world, but with less weapons, there will be less damage.

So weapons manufacturers, if they are guided by profit, have no responsibility to consider what their products might be used for, as long as they close their eyes and say, “I didn’t push the button”?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

…I was thinking more along the lines of military aircrafts and bombers costing billions of dollars…

Why do they even make it in the first place? Because people will use them to make things explode — they’re not decorative items or backyard hobbies. And sometimes people die. Sometimes these people are enemies, sometimes innocent people.

There will always be hatred in the world, but with less weapons, there will be less damage.

So weapons manufacturers, if they are guided by profit, have no responsibility to consider what their products might be used for, as long as they close their eyes and say, “I didn’t push the button”?

Ok, let’s talk about that. (Naval ships probably are the most expensive single instruments of war; modern aircraft carriers cost about $13T.)

Who buys them? If these are instruments of evil then why are you focused on the seller and not the buyer/user? Who presses the button? On the other hand, if the buyer is justified, why not the seller?

The belief that removing weapons reduces damage is a dangerous myth. The people most likely to reduce their weapons are the ones least likely to use them offensively.

 

[Tbrightson]

You are being way too sensitive on behalf of the weapons manufacturers. I doubt if they themselves would consider it an insult. In fact they would probably agree that you should not put your ultimate trust in them. They would get a laugh out of this discussion too.

So I see you agree with the pope…anyone who is involved in weapons manufacturing is un-Christian and untrustworthy…My what big judgmental uncharitable brush we wield!

 

[Tbrightson]

I prefer to criticize what the media reports that he said. Did he mean that? I dunno. I don’t care.

There are plenty of others here who obviously believe he meant what the media reports him to have said because they approve of it and I can’t, in all honesty, say they are wrong.

When this first started happening I, too, believed he was being misquoted or mistranslated. (Does anyone really believe that people are starving because of food waste?) But the pattern suggests that he is not being (significantly) misrepresented in the media.

Oh, well.

I agree…

“Does anyone really believe that people are starving because of food waste?”

Did he actually say that? :doh2:

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree…

“Does anyone really believe that people are starving because of food waste?”

Did he actually say that? :doh2:

Well, the media reported him saying something to that effect early in his pontificate. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[maryjk]

The belief that removing weapons reduces damage is a dangerous myth. The people most likely to reduce their weapons are the ones least likely to use them offensively.

That reminds me of the quote in my signature.

Making good people helpless, won’t make bad people harmless.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So I see you agree with the pope…anyone who is involved in weapons manufacturing is un-Christian and untrustworthy…My what big judgmental uncharitable brush we wield!

What a Bizarro world we live in where it is a derogatory remark on Catholic Answers to say “I see you agree with the Pope.”!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I prefer to criticize what the media reports that he said. Did he mean that? I dunno. I don’t care.

Well, that statement is belied by your postings #632, #624, and #611, all of which directly criticize the pope and his views, not the media reporting of the same. So don’t try to pretend now that you have not been caring what the pope meant or thinks, because it is too easy to check up on that.

There are plenty of others here who obviously believe he meant what the media reports him to have said because they approve of it and I can’t, in all honesty, say they are wrong.

It would be serious statistical mistake to infer the general popularity of an idea by how many posters on Catholic Answers subscribe to it. These posters are not representative of the people in the Church. And even if these ideas were representative, truth is not determined by a popularity contest. You probably can’t say they are wrong because you don’t want to say they are wrong. Your defense of hawkish ideals is apparently more important than your defense of our Holy Father.

When this first started happening I, too, believed he was being misquoted or mistranslated… But the pattern suggests that he is not being (significantly) misrepresented in the media…

What pattern? What confirming observation of the pope’s messages have you seen that supports the view that anyone involved in weapons manufacturing cannot be Christian?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, that statement is belied by your postings #632, #624, and #611, all of which directly criticize the pope and his views, not the media reporting of the same. So don’t try to pretend now that you have not been caring what the pope meant or thinks, because it is too easy to check up on that.

I’ve made no effort to distinguish the two. I don’t know what he’s thinking or what he actually said; I wasn’t there (and he’s not speaking English in these cases). I am certainly not assuming it is all the medias fault as some have argued here. But, no, I have no personal beef with Pope Francis and I would love it to be the case that he was misrepresented by the press. I just don’t believe that any longer.

It would be serious statistical mistake to infer the general popularity of an idea by how many posters on Catholic Answers subscribe to it. These posters are not representative of the people in the Church. And even if these ideas were representative, truth is not determined by a popularity contest. You probably can’t say they are wrong because you don’t want to say they are wrong. Your defense of hawkish ideals is apparently more important than your defense of our Holy Father.

We’ve heard all sorts of things in this thread. Some say Pope Francis is speaking the truth as quoted, others insist he was misrepresented. I am responding to what people say here and focusing on the substance, not the personalities.

Call me biased but those who have tried to rationalize the actual words as reported (whether or not they were what Pope Francis intended), have had a very hard time of it.

What pattern? What confirming observation of the pope’s messages have you seen that supports the view that anyone involved in weapons manufacturing cannot be Christian?

No, not only weapons. There have been a series of these off-the-cuff remarks that draw attention and debate. In each case, there have been those who insisted he was misquoted or mistranslated by the media.