Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tbrightson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LongingSoul said:
Police have a special commission to protect the community (similar to soldiers whose commission extends to the broader community again). In the course of that duty they are armed to kill if necessary with the most prudent weapons ie. handguns. They are commissioned to act with deadly force in the course of their commission. They do have to be highly accountable of course to ensure they acted according to their training, for the common good and not from any private agenda. Luckily in Australia police shootings are rare. They are highly trained to diffuse situations with both tactical and psychological measures. Nevertheless, they are permitted to use the deadly force of a gun for the protection of the community.
Click to expand...
But that is NOT the same thing as having the INTENT to kill, so you didn’t answer the question.

Why do you support police having the power seeking to kill people, or how else would you describe someone having the INTENT TO KILL ?
In Australia, civilians are not permitted to kill to defend themselves with a gun acquired for self defense. They are permitted to defend themselves with appropriate force even if in doing so the aggressor may be killed, but not to premeditate killing a person by carrying a gun. Those are two different commissions.
Click to expand...
But carrying a gun for defense is not a premeditated killing, it falls under the same “They are permitted to defend themselves with appropriate force even if in doing so the aggressor may be killed”
In Australia, to carry a gun is to have a premeditated intent to kill. That is restricted to the legitimate public authorities ie police, soldiers.
Click to expand...
And, in the US, the people are a legitmate authority. In fact, under our democratic system, the people are the source of the legal rights that the police and soldiers have.
You are assuming that both StJPII and Aquinas are authorising the use of guns for self defense by private citizens here. .
Click to expand...
Yep, ST JP-II specifically stated so
legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State
Click to expand...
Is not a parent responsible for the life of their child, or for the good of the family, where in Catholic theology do they cede that right to the State?

Earlier in the thread, I had mentioned the 1943 Warsaw uprising, where Jews in the Warsaw getto took up arms to defend themselves from the Nazis. None of them were police or soliders, and they did not have civil, legal authority to bear arms.

Would you claim, then that the self defense was illegitimate, as your conditions were not met?

Or if the defense WAS legitimate in the eyes of Aquinas and the teaching of the Church, which law, or legio (the root of ‘legitimate’) gave them the authority, was it the civil law or the natural moral law?
 
styrgwillidar said:
Yeah, but in the US they have no obligation or duty to protect any individual.
Click to expand...
True, if they had a legal obligation to protect an individual, anyone who got mugged could sue them for failure of legal obligation.

I don’t think that is true, even in Australia or the UK
For police to protect everyone they would have to be everywhere all the time. 1/4th of us would have to be police. The law acknowledges the police can’t be everywhere, they can’t even be held liable for failing to respond to a call at all, much less for delayed response.
Click to expand...
There is that old quote, “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away”

Back when Dominoe’s pizza was advertising their “20 min or less” delivery time, a radio station did a test. They called an ambulance, for a pizza and for the police.

The ambulance arrived first, and the pizza delivery guy came before the police did.

So LS, how exactly is it ‘protection’ from a crime if the police come AFTER the crime has been committed? Certainly, the police will attempt to track down the attacker, but the person lying there in blood was clearly not protected from the crime.
 
LongingSoul said:
Having a sophisticated and armed military is prudent. There is absolutely no reason that civilians need weapons of war in a peaceful environment. You are relying on fear mongering propaganda which is invested in turning profits.
Click to expand...
Peaceful environments only exist because peaceful men have weapons of war.
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
Getting back onto topic here I would attribute the Pope’s comments as off the cuff again because clearly you can’t be the sovereign leader of a country where guns are used (Vatican Swiss Guard) where the weapons industry is not being employed. He probably meant weapons of mass destruction (chemical or biological weapons) but it didn’t come across like that.

He made a mistake. He isn’t a heretic. Let’s move on.
Click to expand...
There has been a lot of speculation as to what he might have meant. Weapons of mass destruction, unregulated small arms trade, expensive weapons like ships and tanks. (Not to mention the claim that he was misqouted or mistranslated.)

I agree he’s speaking off-the-cuff here but as someone else pointed out, it’s not the first time he’s attacked “merchants of death” and there have been many other, shall we say, interesting off-the-cuff remarks.

I think we should all be prepared for more of this in the Pope Francis pontificate. I honestly don’t know what to make of it.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
There has been a lot of speculation as to what he might have meant. Weapons of mass destruction, unregulated small arms trade, expensive weapons like ships and tanks. (Not to mention the claim that he was misqouted or mistranslated.)

I agree he’s speaking off-the-cuff here but as someone else pointed out, it’s not the first time he’s attacked “merchants of death” and there have been many other, shall we say, interesting off-the-cuff remarks.

I think we should all be prepared for more of this in the Pope Francis pontificate. I honestly don’t know what to make of it.
Click to expand...
In reading what the Pope actually stated, it is pretty clear to me that he’s referring leaders who say one thing, but do another via their actions or inactions.

He’s referring to hypocrisy. For example: person who says they are against war, but invests money in weapons manufactures. Nations who say they are trying to protect the innocence in a war, but don’t blow up train lines which are transporting people to death camps due to political/economic reasons. People who claim to be Christians but invest in weapons manufactures who sell to Iran and Muslim extremists.

Also, people who take no responsibility for their actions… for example, the gun store clerk who refuses to do back ground checks and allows criminals to buy guns. Or liquor store clerk who knows he’s selling beer to a person who is giving it to kids.

And most importantly… The person who claims to be Christian but lives no differently than the atheist. Father Michael Schmitz has a new Lighthouse CD coming out… and in it he says this:

If someone looks at your bank records, can they tell you are a Christian? If someone notices how your spend your free time, can they tell you are a Christian? If someone looks at the friends you keep, can they tell you are a Christian? If someone else follows your example and lives the same life you do, will they be a great saint or just a nice person? If everyone does what you do everyday, will the world be changed for Christ?

Leaders (and we are all leaders) are called to lead by example. The example we set should be that if someone else was to do what we do, they would become a great saint and do something wonderful for Christ. I think this is what the Pope’s message was… too many people say they are Christians, but you would never tell by how they spend their time & money.

God Bless.
 
phil19034 said:
In reading what the Pope actually stated, it is pretty clear to me that he’s referring leaders who say one thing, but do another via their actions or inactions.

He’s referring to hypocrisy. For example: person who says they are against war, but invests money in weapons manufactures.
Click to expand...
Let’s focus here for a moment. Is this really hypocrisy?

True, someone who is a pacifist who invests money in weapons (or manufacturers them) would be a hypocrite but not all who are against war are pacifist. Typically those who arm themselves, make arms, or invest in arms are of the view that war is bad but submission to evil is worse.

The phrase typically used is: “peace through strength” meaning detering enemies by demonstrating that one is not an easy target.

Things are obviously more complicated with respect to protecting the innocent from evil. Should a well armed nation like the US defend other nations from aggressive neighbors and would that constitute a love of war?
 
I guess this thread might be kind of played out and finished, but I just wanted to recommend a book which I think explains very well what Francis likely had in mind when he made his manufacturers statement. The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, by Andrew Feinstein is a truly eye-opening book, and I think it’s about the closest most of us will ever come to hangin’ out at at an international arms bazaar and witnessing what goes on there. Also, it’s not at all a boring book and it’s quite fun, in the same kind of way that a mystery novel with a thoroughly evil plotline is also quite a bit of fun. I really have a strong sense that this is what our father was talking about, and not so much gun dealers that sell to hunters or people intent on protecting their families…

amazon.com/The-Shadow-World-Inside-Global/dp/B00AZ8AOBW/
 
Exiled_Child said:
I guess this thread might be kind of played out and finished, but I just wanted to recommend a book which I think explains very well what Francis likely had in mind when he made his manufacturers statement. The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, by Andrew Feinstein is a truly eye-opening book, and I think it’s about the closest most of us will ever come to hangin’ out at at an international arms bazaar and witnessing what goes on there. Also, it’s not at all a boring book and it’s quite fun, in the same kind of way that a mystery novel with a thoroughly evil plotline is also quite a bit of fun. I really have a strong sense that this is what our father was talking about, and not so much gun dealers that sell to hunters or people intent on protecting their families…

amazon.com/The-Shadow-World-Inside-Global/dp/B00AZ8AOBW/
Click to expand...
Well, it’s always a guessing game. Probably another misinterpretation. 😉

…Maybe there needs to be a vatican department that is in charge of interpreting the words of pope Francis.
 
TEPO said:
Well, it’s always a guessing game. Probably another misinterpretation. 😉

…Maybe there needs to be a vatican department that is in charge of interpreting the words of pope Francis.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but I’m just guessing he was referring to arms manufacturers who actually foment wars, as opposed to the neighborhood sporting goods store. But you’re right, I’m only guessing.🤷 It’s a killer book, by the way, though it’s quite long.
 
This gun debate is a hard nut to crack, which leads me to thinking, that the world would be a simpler place if it could sort out its problems with conker (horse chestnut) fights.
 
friardchips said:
This gun debate is a hard nut to crack, which leads me to thinking, that the world would be a simpler place if it could sort out its problems with conker (horse chestnut) fights.
Click to expand...
True, but the situation is that the USA possesses a huge cache of nuclear and chemical weapons. Just recently, they had a security breach with 20 million names and personal information being stolen. They said that it could not happen. Well, American security breaches happen and with an enormous number of these nuclear and chemical weapons lying around, who can guarantee that they do not end up in the wrong hands?
 
Exiled_Child said:
You may be right, but I’m just guessing he was referring to arms manufacturers who actually foment wars, as opposed to the neighborhood sporting goods store. But you’re right, I’m only guessing.
Click to expand...
That everyone is guessing alone speaks volumes.
 
graciew said:
Yes , it is. Phil explained it clearly.

Sounds like trying to wrap the Pope up with scotch tape
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. And I explained why. You are welcome to try to show me where I am wrong.
graciew said:
The silence of millions who can no longer.speak is more eloquent still.
The rest is just.noise.
Pope Francis is Catholic. No need to guess ,Bubba.
Click to expand...
People are killed in war, I get that.

For some, that is a reason to cease thinking. I don’t get that.
 
ringil said:
I would say that the biggest enemy of the Church is division.
Click to expand...
Confusion breeds division (among other things).

If Pope Francis says X in such a way that different people draw different conclusions then you will get division, not unity. Even those defending Pope Francis’ words (or, at least, what the press reports him to have said) cannot agree among themselves what he meant.

Now I happen to think that unity is overvalued and that sincere and charitable differences of opinion are healthy and lead to a better understanding of truth.

But I can’t see how it advances the mission of the Church to issue thoughtless and uncharitable ambiguities.

Maybe that’s just me.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Can they go to confession I wonder?
Click to expand...
This brings up another aspect of this that disturbes me. Assuming that Pope Francis was accurately quoted, he is not lecturing weapons manufacturers on the errors of their ways, which is what you’d expect from a pastoral pope, he is telling others to blame them for the violence of war.

If Pope Francis truly believes that weapons manufacturers are the cause of unjust war, why not address them privately or even publicly here:

dsei.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top