The Pope: not using or possessing nuclear arms will be added to the Catechism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Indeed, in thinking about your points later, I think the better analogy may be the possession of birth control pharmaceuticals.

We all know that the church regards the use of contraceptive pharmaceuticals for contraception to be morally illicit. Setting aside, for a moment, that they can be prescribed for other uses that aren’t morally illicit, I don’t think mere possession of them would be regarded as immoral even if we assume that, for a normal healthy woman they’d have that effect. That is, a woman could buy them and possess them, but that wouldn’t (I think) be immoral in and of itself.

And clearly if I, as a man, possessed them, they’d not only be useless to me in my possession, but that presumably wouldn’t be morally illicit.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
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.
Click to expand...
All Catholics are impacted by any change in the Catechism as any development expresses a development in something we believe as a whole.

Moreover, all Catholics of an age to hold off and vote are impacted by it, as when you vote for national office you are voting for people who have a role in your country’s ownership of weapons. A person must consider whether or not a candidate holds views that are contrary to a persons’ faith, if their faith means anything.

After all, let’s consider (this will be an extreme example), if I’m a German in 1932 and I don’t personally intend to oppress Jews and I don’t personally intend to invade foreign lands, can I vote for a candidate who holds those views? Clearly not.

So, now, if the Catechism is changed this is something that needs to be considered.

If you live in a democratic state that owns nuclear weapons, in some sense, you do. Granted, not directly. But just as in the US I can’t simply ignore a candidates views on abortion or funding of public entities that support it by the government, this is one more thing I’d need to consider.

Finally, if you ever intend to hold public office, or join the military, this is one more thing you’d have to take into account.
 
Yeoman said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
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.
Click to expand...
All Catholics are impacted by any change in the Catechism as any development expresses a development in something we believe as a whole.

Moreover, all Catholics of an age to hold off and vote are impacted by it, as when you vote for national office you are voting for people who have a role in your country’s ownership of weapons. A person must consider whether or not a candidate holds views that are contrary to a persons’ faith, if their faith means anything.

After all, let’s consider (this will be an extreme example), if I’m a German in 1932 and I don’t personally intend to oppress Jews and I don’t personally intend to invade foreign lands, can I vote for a candidate who holds those views? Clearly not.

So, now, if the Catechism is changed this is something that needs to be considered.

If you live in a democratic state that owns nuclear weapons, in some sense, you do. Granted, not directly. But just as in the US I can’t simply ignore a candidates views on abortion or funding of public entities that support it by the government, this is one more thing I’d need to consider.

Finally, if you ever intend to hold public office, or join the military, this is one more thing you’d have to take into account.
Click to expand...
Or you could just say “that’s the Pope’s opinion,” and not change anything about your belief or behavior.

That’s a more likely response around here.
 
Last edited:
No eco-sins, no enviro-sins, and no nuclear sins. And why the latter? Let’s just examine the matter a bit more closely.

Somehow, I have come into the possession of a nuke. It’s deep in an underground vault deep beneath the surface of my property (let’s say 1/2 mile), so nobody can steal it. I’ve been assured by the powers that be that the nuke is really mine (no, I don’t really know why, but this is part of the premise), and that nobody else besides the person who has assured me of this knows it’s there and that he is going to take the secret to his grave and that he is going to die soon. And, I also know a couple of true pertinent facts: I would need the code in order to set it off, and unless there is upkeep on the nuke, it will become permanently inactive because tritium has a half-life of 12 years. This means I have an inactive more or less useless nuke on my property which nobody knows about, so nobody is likely to be able to use it (not even me) or steal it from me. Yes, it would be bad if other people knew about it, because I would not be able to protect it from even a small determined band, but nobody knows. Finally, my real intention, just let it sit there.

Now, one might disapprove of me for deciding to just leave it there, and perhaps say that for some indefinable reason I shouldn’t be able to own a real but useless nuke, but I don’t believe it, I don’t believe that I’m committing a “nuclear sin”. No, there is nothing wrong with possessing some useless hunk of underground military hardware which I have no intention of ever revealing or using; I’m not in a state of “nuclear mortal sin”.
 
Last edited:
Mark121359 said:
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?
Click to expand...
That is a good point.
But let us also look at it from a different point of view.
The catechism is supposed to be a summary of truths. If we are to believe our Bishops, it serves as follows:
The Catechism serves several important functions:
Code: 
1. It conveys the essential and fundamental content of Catholic faith and morals in a complete and summary way.
2. It is a point of reference for national and diocesan catechisms.
3. It is a positive, objective and declarative exposition of Catholic doctrine.
4. It is intended to assist those who have the duty to catechize, namely promoters and teachers of catechesis.
So…if we introduce erroneous teachings, what does this do for the Church as a whole?
Wouldn’t the Church not only teach truths, but also now teach error?

How can this do anything but tear at the Church?
 
Last edited:
You can disregard the Magisterium all you like. Doesn’t change the Church’s teaching, which does not and never has aligned with US Republican talking points. Eco-sins as a term may be new, but the sin isn’t…and it’s not new to this pope either. Likewise, targeting civilians isn’t a new sin either, and this nuclear teaching simply builds on that.
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding? Laws vary from place to place. You are bound to follow a just law.
 
Last edited:
Many countries have just laws prohibiting firearms that you should morally obey. Also felons should not own firearms or abusers or mentally ill people. Few Catholics can morally own a firearm now.
 
Nuclear weapons have been in continuous use for many decades now, at least since the beginning of the cold war. They are used every day, not to destroy things though. They are used as a deterrent, to prevent nuclear war. I would argue that their use has successfully kept the major powers from engaging in nuclear war. Perhaps it would be both dangerous and sinful if one nation, such as the U.S. Were to eliminate its use of the nuclear deterrent. It might put the whole world at risk.
 
Last edited:
The Pope doesn’t just have “irrelevant opinions”, especially when it comes to moral teaching. All catholics are expected to humbly accept his exhortations and to take them very seriously. Some people, if they can reconsider their contempt, should remind themselves of this.

Saint Pius the Xth:
“The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine. […] Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.”
Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union November 18, 1912

Pius the XIth:
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
CASTI CONNUBII ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.
 
Last edited:
Weserthy said:
Can it even be said that merely possessing nuclear weapons is a sin?
Click to expand...
Is possessing biological weapons a sin? You are holding weapons that could be used to poison the water supply and wipe out millions of people. It seems to be wrong to me. Similarly, I agree with the Holy Father that it is wrong to possess nuclear bombs.
 
Is the untrue part the “few”? Ok fine. A majority of Catholics cannot morally own firearms. Including weapons of Mass destruction.
 
Last edited:
If you are educated on nuclear weapons laws in all countries of the world I tip my hat to you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top