Certainly, it is difficult to make the demands of the Gospel understandable to secularized people. But this pastoral difficulty must not lead to compromises with the truth.
Telegram Channels
Today's Mass
Traditional Liturgical Calendar
Tags
abortion
anti-Catholicism
anti-Christianity
anti-Russian propaganda
apostasy
Bergoglio anti-Catholicism
Bergoglio effect
Bergoglio heresy
Bergoglio homosexualism
Bergoglio idiocy
Bergoglioism
Bergoglio pontificate failure
Bp. Athanasius Schneider
CallMeJorge
Cardinal Müller
Cardinal Robert Sarah
Cdl. Raymond Burke
China
Church in Germany
Church revival
Covid19 coronavirus totalitarianism
culture of death
diabolical disorientation
DNC
Donald Trump
E.U.
EponymousFlower
euthanasia
feminism
Fr. Allan J. McDonald
Fr. John Hunwicke
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
Fr. Peter Carota
Fr. Ray Blake
France
Germany
GlobalResearch
Gloria.tv
Gregory DiPippo
Holy Communion for lechers
homosexualism
homosexuality
intra-Church persecution
ISIS
Islam
Islamisation
Laura Wood
leftism
LifeNews
LifeSiteNews
Louie Verrecchio
Maike Hickson
marriage
Matthew Archbold
Michael Matt
modernism
Mundabor
Novus Motus Liturgicus
Novus Ordo
Novus Ordo apostasy
Novus Ordo filth
Novusordoism
Novus Ordo Missae
NovusOrdoWatch
OnePeterFive
papal heresy
papal piracy
papal scandal
persecution
Peter Hitchens
Peter Kwasniewski
political correctness
Pope Benedict XVI
Roberto de Mattei
Ron Paul Institute
Rorate Caeli
Russia
SSPX
Steve Skojec
StrategicCulture.org
Sweden
Syrian war
Tantumblogo
The Remnant
totalitarianism
traditionalism
transgenderism
Tridentine Mass
U.K. decline
U.S. circus
U.S. decline
U.S. militarism
U.S. roguery
Ukraine
Vatican II
Vladimir Putin
VoxCantoris
Western civilisation downfall
Western decadence
Western intervention
De Profundis , Dr Bobus , Ultraviolet , CatMuse
De Profundis
27 nov
...
De Profundis
27 nov
...
Dr Bobus
27 nov
2. The US has conventional weapons that are more destructive than certain nuclear bombs.
...
Ultraviolet
27 nov
...
Ultraviolet
27 nov
CatMuse
28 nov
This is a little odd...
"2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65"
It makes a statement about the killing of the innocent and the conflates it with the killing of an aggressor. Furthermore, the killing of the aggressor is always intended in State executions. Certainly also in issues of self defence I may intend to kill the aggressor to preserve my own life or the life of those to which I have care. When you look to the "65" reference for clarity there is none.
Ultraviolet
28 nov
The murder of an innocent has, naturally, death as its intended outcome. Legitimate defense, however, does not. The intent of a legitimate defense is to preserve one's own life (and by extension those one seeks to protect), nothing further. That last point is vitally important. If, while securing that intent, the aggressor dies it was not deliberately sought out. The agressor's death was never intended.
Let's see if I can clarify the two. Think back to the original story in Genesis, Cain beat Abel to death. Definitely an intentional killing. Cain wanted Abel dead.
Now suppose Moshe decides to kill Cain over a land dispute. Moshe botches the job and Cain hits Moshe on the head with a staff. Moshe get knocked out. Cain's intent is to protect himself. He isn't trying to kill Moshe, he's trying to stop Moshe. If Moshe dies as the result of that blow, the death is unintentional. Under those circumstances, Cain would be blameless according to CCC 2263/ 2264.
Now let's suppose every time Moshe crawls dazedly to his hands and knees, Cain smashes Moshe over the head as hard as he can. Depending on where Cain lives, this might be entirely legal. Cain is "standing his ground".
Cain's fast-talking attorney would argue Cain was still "in fear of his life" and believed Moshe was attempting to "continue the attack", etc. etc.
The reality, of course, is Cain was murderously angry at being attacked and very deliberately set out to kill Moshe once he (Cain) gained the upper hand.
The city prosecutor, looking over the specifics of the law and the vague circumstances of the case, doesn't prosecute. Cain walks.This might be legal, but it goes against the teachings of The Church.
"Furthermore, the killing of the aggressor is always intended in State executions."
...for the subject of the death penalty,, see Paragraph 2267.
"Certainly also in issues of self defence I may intend to kill the aggressor to preserve my own life or the life of those to which I have care."
As a private citizen, according to the Catechism, that's a no-no.
You should not intend to kill an aggressor or anyone else. Unintentionally killing someone during self-defense and deliberately intending to kill someone from the outset are entirely different intentions.
Paragraph 2265 addresses those in professions where they are responsible for the lives of others, i.e. police and military, hence the explicit reference to "the defense of the common good".
A husband, say, protecting his family is not defending "the common good", merely his own. This is made even more clear in the final sentence. "For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."
Private citizens do not, outside of some extraordinarily specific circumstances, legitimately hold any authority whatsoever.
Likewise, they haven't been entrusted with or given the responsibility to "to repel aggressors against the civil community". This paragraph is clearly aimed at those in such professions (or perhaps drafted into them).
Simply put, this paragraph isn't for Mr. NRA who just realized he can legally mag-dump his shiny new Sig Sauer "Molon Labe" .45 handgun into someone's else's head.
Secular law might side with him, but the Church's teachings are firmly opposed to this, both in action and intent. The Catechism is focuses on the true facts of what happened. What a person knows, truly, in their heart.
Not what they told everyone else, not the story their clever criminal lawyer told the police, or even whatever justifications they self-righteously talk themselves into half-believing. The Church is addressing why they really did what they did,
CatMuse
28 nov
This is one of those rare occasions in which Bergoglio says something which is actually true and proper. The opinion that the possession of nuclear weapons in and of itself is immoral, is I believe, the very same opinion held by Cardinal Ottaviani - the great opposer of the Novus Ordo Missae at its introduction, and the head of the Holy Office at the time.
Given that we are dealing with Bergoglio, it is unlikely, improbable even, he is opposing the possession of nuclear weapons on Catholic principles, which leaves us none the wiser as to his actual motivations.
However, as with everything else Bergoglian, my beef with him is that he thinks he owns the Church and that he is not bound by tradition. Rather than developing the teaching against nuclear weapons and allowing it to be widely challenged, discussed and accepted, he is going straing through the catechism-fixing route as though his opinion had the force of law.
We must oppose this vehemently because the catechism is not supposed to be used by the pope to settle disputes and contentious issues. It is supposed to be a summary of teaching widely held and for reasons well-substantiated by great Catholic thinkers, not Argentinian crackpots and their henchmen.