Again, you are assuming a usage that may never be the case.
What if someone wants one as a coffee table?
They haven’t agreed to detonation, they agreed to prop their feet on it and use it as a conversation piece.
Would this be a sin?
The Pope: not using or possessing nuclear arms will be added to the Catechism
- Status
What if someone wants one as a coffee table?
They haven’t agreed to detonation, they agreed to prop their feet on it and use it as a conversation piece.
Would this be a sin?
Y
Yeoman
Guest
For individuals, this is true. For nations, it is not.
A person can own a sword or a firearm merely as an object. Indeed, beyond that, a person can own a sword, firearm or any other weapon with an intent to use them other than for an immoral purpose even if you have an intent to use them. I can own a firearm made as a weapon of war and use it for hunting, or target practice, for example. Or I can own a sword as I’m a member of the Knights of Columbus (I’m not).
For that matter, I could own a tank because I’m a tank collector (I’m also note that).
But for nations, owning modern weapons is solely for a strategic purpose. That’s it. So the question is, what is the strategic purpose.
Indeed, other than perhaps having acquired them with a state broke up that a lessor possessing state was part of, which has resulted in disposal of the weapons in the past, I can’t imagine a single reason that a nation would own nuclear weapons that doesn’t express an intent to use them in at least some circumstances.
If ownership of the weapon is labelled a sin in the CCC, it is not going to differentiate between individual and state.
But beyond that, you are assuming intent again. Just assuming intent of a nation instead of a individual.
Assuming again.
Last edited:
Y
Yeoman
Guest
The problem with a reductio ad absurdum postion in an argument is that it doesn’t reflect reality.
What if I bought Playboy magazines in order to prop up a window that keeps dropping down on my house cat when she wants to look out the window? Or, using your example, what if I bought them in order to have ready table legs for a coffee table. What if I purchased illegal drugs as it was a quicker way to get plastic bags that I needed for some other use.
In the entire history of nuclear weapons no nation has bought them to make coffee tables out of them. They serve but one purpose.
The better argument is that modern nuclear weapons can be used in a way that isn’t disproportionate, and therefore isn’t automatically morally illicit. The reason that argument tends not to be made is that it suggest that our 1945 use was morally illicit, and that our deterrent use from the late Cold war through the early 1970s may have been morally illicit. That’s an uncomfortable topic for many, many people (I frankly think the 1945 use was morally illicit). We don’t really want to take on the current “they aren’t what they use to be argument” as that would mean that we might have to admit that what we were doing was wrong.
Indeed that would be real change, if there is one, to the Catechism. It already says their use was wrong. But if use is included to mean use as a deterrent, which we’ve never held before, that’s uncomfortable. But we have to admit, in the real word, use as a deterrent means you would use them.
Now, however, that might not mean what it once did, which is probably where the debate should be.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
Can you think of a single example, of any kind, which isn’t absurd, for a nation to own a nuclear weapon which doesn’t involve at least an implied threat to use them?
I’d submit that’s impossible. There are no other uses for them other than what they are designed to do, wild examples like blowing up ice bergs or enhancing oil production (which have been actually suggested in the past) aside.
If there’s a morally licit use, possession surely shouldn’t be prohibited. And ironically in this debate, I think that their potential use may in fact be morally licit as the weapons of today aren’t necessarily the high yield weapons of the past. But we have to be realistic as to their purpose.
True.
But this also leads to the biggest problem with making it a sin merely owning something.
In all cases, the sinfulness depends upon an assumed usage of the object.
Ownership, by itself, does not involve a sin.
Ownership, plus some assumed use, does…in some cases.
I can make these reductio ad absurdum arguments all day. And that is what they are.
But in this case, it proves a very important point.
You have to add something to make ownership a sin. Ownership by itself doesn’t constitute a sin.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Given that I personally am not planning to own, use, possess etc any nuclear weapons now or ever, this being in the Catechism or not has zero effect on me one way or another. I presume most Catholics who are not members of the military or possibly the scientists/ engineers designing and building the weapons are similarly unaffected by this pronouncement.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I don’t think it’s a big reach to decide that weapons of mass destruction with the potential to negatively effect the entire planet are inherently sinful.
I mean, does this really need to be spelled out? It’s the kind of moral issue that even atheists would likely agree with us on.
I mean, does this really need to be spelled out? It’s the kind of moral issue that even atheists would likely agree with us on.
To be inherently sinful, there can be no good whatsoever possible.
But we know this is not the case.
Do we declare morality based upon popular opinion?
P
Pnwcatholic
Guest
It’s a sad day when we have to point out there is nothing holy about a nuclear weapon. Good for the pope. He is not afraid to instruct the arrogant. The US should listen and disarm nuclear weapons. All nuclear weapons!
Tis_Bearself
Patron
“Popular opinion” didn’t decide that mass murder and planet destruction was a sin, any more than “popular opinion” decided that mass murder was a sin.
It’s common sense.
Leaving this thread now as it seems to be overcomplicating a very simple issue.
It’s common sense.
Leaving this thread now as it seems to be overcomplicating a very simple issue.
It is likewise common sense to see you are talking about a possible use and not the ownership.
B
billsherman
Guest
This is the most accurate post I have ever read on this board.
If I’ve learned anything from this board it’s that the Church’s moral authority is subservient to an individual’s own political preferences.
How do you know the Church has made an infallible statement? You agree with it!
O
o_mlly
Guest
I don’t think the Catechism is the correct instrument to initially instruct the faithful in novel teachings.
USCCB: Frequently Asked Questions about the Catechism of the Catholic Church
USCCB: Frequently Asked Questions about the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
It think it fair to say that the authority of the Catechism’s teachings is in its footnotes. For researchers, the Catechism is usually not considered a prime, but rather a secondary source. Let us hope that Pope Francis provides a prime source for future revisions to our Catechism which the USCCB repeatedly refers to as “a summary” of Church doctrine.
Mark121359
Well-known member
We all know that the left is trying to find a way to limit/ban firearms. How long before the Vatican jumps on that bandwagon and adds to the CCC that possessing or owning a handgun is a sin? The USCCB certainly aren’t very fond of them now!
Last edited:
P
Pnwcatholic
Guest
In many places owning a handgun would be a sin.
How can something be sinful in one place but not another?
T
twf
Guest
Because we are obliged to obey the authorities.
This applies in many spheres. It would be sinful for an American Catholic to miss Mass on All Saints, but not for a Canadian, as our bishops have implemented different guidelines. Likewise, it would be sinful for someone to carry a handgun in a place where its lawfully prohibited, but not in a place where it is permitted.
This applies in many spheres. It would be sinful for an American Catholic to miss Mass on All Saints, but not for a Canadian, as our bishops have implemented different guidelines. Likewise, it would be sinful for someone to carry a handgun in a place where its lawfully prohibited, but not in a place where it is permitted.
- Status