Moreover, arms cannot simply be compared with other goods exchanged in global or domestic markets. The quest for a world more respectful of the dignity of human person and the value of human life must be the founding principle of the ATT.So, pally, are Benedict's more-trustworthy-than-the-rest-of-us Swiss Guards gonna keep their SG 550s?
Viewed from this perspective, the international community requires a strong, effective and credible legal instrument that is capable of regulating and improving transparency in the trade of conventional arms and munitions, including the trading and licensing of technologies for their production. [More]
I don't suppose it's occurred to you that an armed citizenry might have been able to help you guys avoid a certain amount of "controversy"? And I don't suppose it occurs to you that those wielding a "monopoly of force" are also the ones who would require you to pay for abortions in Catholic health care plans?
6 comments:
They're not preaching Catholic doctrine. That's that Bishop's opinion and the Pope's opinion. This coming from a sinful yet faithful Catholic who believes all the doctrines of the Church through the Magisterium concerning faith or morals. That little speech at the UN ain't concernin' neither a matter of faith or morals.
I apologize on their behalf. They do mean well. (Peace, justice, etc.) They just don't realize the implications and ramifications of what they're saying.
All I can do is shake my head and point out that they're not espousing any official doctrine of the Church when they say stuff like that.
Understood, but they are speaking with the authority of the Church, because Rome has the juice to rein this creature in.
In re apologizing on their behalf, none of us can or should unless we enabled them and share the guilt. It's kind of like forgiving someone who has not transgressed against you. The only ones who can do that are the ones who have been harmed.
The last thing I will do is attack someone based on the faith in which they were raised and ascribe to--it is individual actions, not membership in any group which define us.
See, that's just it. They aren't speaking with the authority of the Church. Authority is a moral right. They do not have the moral right to say what they're saying. They have the moral right to proclaim Catholic doctrine, to which their statement on arms control, particularly PRIVATE arms control, was not related.
"In re apologizing on their behalf, none of us can or should unless we enabled them and share the guilt."
"Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." He did not enable them or share their guilt.
Political authority is what those with the power to command it say it is. Whether it is moral is a separate question altogether. The archbishop is speaking under the brand name of the church, representing its official position to other world states. As head of the delegation, he damn well represents them and has their approval to speak for them in this matter, or they would disavow and discipline him.
He says "The Holy See is convinced that the Arms Trade Treaty can provide..." He doesn't say "I," but speaks for the church. And his statements are presented on the Vatican Radio site, proclaiming itself "The voice of the Pope and the Church..."
Here's clarification on the Church position--that is, what it allows to be promulgated in its name:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm
In re Jesus apologizing, he said "Forgive them," not "Forgive me." He was the injured party and the only one with human moral authority to forgive his executioners.
Go ahead and have the last word if you like--unless I see something compelling me to reexamine my view on this.
David, I see where you're coming from. I think we're talking about two different things here. There is the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church (official doctrine) and there's a bishop who claims to be speaking on behalf of the church (unofficial teeaching.) The two are not identical.
The first Pope, St. Peter, denied Jesus three times. He was one of Jesus's chosen leaders, but he wasn't speaking on behalf of the Church when he said those things. St. Peter also refused to eat with gentiles. His actions were not speaking in accord with the Church, and St. Paul called him out on that. Unless he is repeating the official teaching of the Church, the words of a bishop are not the teaching of the Church, however much he may claim to "represent" the Church. Even the Pope, unless teaching on matters of faith and morals, in accord with his brother bishops and the tradition of the Church, does not speak "on behalf of the Church" in its most important sense. If you're non-Catholic, you may not understand the difference. Most Catholics don't even understand the difference (or care.)
Catholics, and everyone else, are completely free to disregard the parts of the bishop's statement that did not have to do with faith or morals. The Church, qua the Church, cannot make a political stance. It can only take moral stances.
There is a story (I don't doubt its veracity, though I can't verify the source) that takes place during the Avignon exile. Speaking to the papal emissary, Napoleon Bonaparte thundered, "I will destroy the Church!" The bishop laughed out loud and replied, "You will not be able to do what even we bishops have been unable to do in 18 centuries!"
I misspoke, I meant the pope's exile in Savona, not the exile in Avignon.
Post a Comment