Pope Francis lamented that the use of guns by civilians to defend themselves is becoming a “habit.”
In an interview on Tuesday with The Associated Press, the pontiff, who has frequently criticized the arms industry, was asked about the large number of guns in civilian hands and frequent massacres in the United States. Francis expressed concern about how recourse to guns has become “habit.”
“I say when you have to defend yourself, all that’s left is to have the elements to defend yourself. Another thing is how that need to defend oneself lengthens, lengthens, and becomes a habit,” Francis said. “Instead of making the effort to help us live, we make the effort to help us kill.”
Francis has denounced the arms industry as trafficking in death. Francis said he wants to draw attention to the problem by saying: “Please, let’s say something that will stop this.”
— Associated Press in Pope decries expanding gun use
tell someone who gives a s**t
Francis is really Fidel
Papal Infallability everyone. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
If you’ve ever seen “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves,” someone needs to Friar Tuck his ass.
Pope Francis job was to convince these people not to kill others, or injure them, or grievous bodily harm, etc etc. Apparently his efforts aren’t working. Therefore, we all have to do what is necessary to defend ourselves. I too lament that it is becoming a habit for good people to protect themselves from bad people, because I would prefer there be nothing but good people. But that’s reality people!
The good news is – if enough bad people die, there won’t be any left! Problem solved!
What the Pope fails to realize is this – The solution (non-lethal) may be worse than the problem.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, someone invents the proverbial “Phaser set on stun”. It won’t kill you, just knock you unconscious for say, 60 seconds (or *whatever* short time). Is that good? I say, *NO*.
Now, someone walking down a hallway can be knocked out and robbed, or *raped*, with near impunity. Going hiking in the wilderness you may be safer from a bear attack, but vulnerable to human with ill intent, while you are far from the cops.
A firearm offers immediate *consequences* from bad or violent actions against someone. Far from perfect, but the best thing currently out there. Over the past 20-30 years, the number of guns in America has roughly doubled, while the number killed has fallen about 50 percent. Thanks to the ‘Bruen’ decision, ‘We’ve only just begun’… 🙂
Love it. Reminds of the Louder With Crowder version with his endless youtube and bob ross battles.
Infallibility only applies in very specific circumstances. The Church has had terrible popes in the past and will continue to. This doesn’t mean I agree with what he said – he’s missed the mark completely.
Would this be from the pope whom parades around in a bullet-proof glass bubblemobile and has a fulltime armed bodyguard battalion at his disposal? Sorry to ignore your missives, but I’m pretty busy beating my plowshares into swords, and then beating the swords into modern weapons… just in case.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just beat the plowshares directly into stripped lowers than going through the process of making swords first? 🤔
… oh Jeezy, NOW you come up with advice !!
Probably just as well. After all, idle hands ARE the tools of the Devil.
The Swiss Guards you don’t see are kitted in full battle rattle.
The ones in the ceremonial costume carrying a halberd are for the tourists.
@ Southern Cross: All those halberd carriers also have a firearm concealed on them.
I can understand how a Pope could err on some obscure element of faith where the Bible is basically silent.
What I cannot understand and accept is how a Pope errs on elements of faith where the Bible is crystal clear. This current Pope and previous Popes have erred in such manner.
“the Bible is crystal clear“
ALL OF THEM
pro-tip:. Canon 188.
He’s not the pope. Ratzinger was the one and only pope, and he’s dead. Jorge is an imposter, a false-prophet communist sodomite forerunner of the Antichrist.
WWJD? Millstones are an option.
“WWJD? Millstones are an option.”
Millstones, a boat, and deep water, perchance? 🙂
Kind of like wondering why the kids they molested resisted or cried about it.
Kinda why I told the Catholic Church to fuck off 57 years ago when the old nuns were into beating kids.
Did you have it coming?
I, personally, never got what I didn’t deserve from my Catholic Nun primary schoolteachers in the late 1960s… 🙂
What the “Christian Brothers” and others did was far worse. If they only gave you a beating you were lucky.
“What the “Christian Brothers” and others did was far worse.”
Like, ‘Poke you with a soft cushion’, or ‘Seat you in the comfy chair’?
Oh, you meant the other thing :
Mmmmmmmm… Dancing Nuns… 🙂
Maybe he should read his Bible once in a while …
What Ross said!
The Bible is crystal clear when it comes to the sanctity of human life, our righteous OBLIGATION to preserve and protect human life, and our righteous OBLIGATION to RESIST evil.
The Pope is well aware of these crystal clear Biblical doctrines. The question with horrifying implications is why the Pope is not only ignoring these clear Biblical doctrines but also speaking against them.
For reference many/most (all?) churches (of all denominations) in my area are equally and inexplicably opposed to armed self-defense at church–in clear contradiction to the Bible. I made my own semi-formal “white paper” citing dozens of Bible verses which spell this out in simple and unambiguous language. My “white paper” also spelled out several common objections to armed self-defense in church and how those objections are false and counterproductive. I decided that the the churches in my area are not interested in learning about their error–and VERY much opposed to hearing Biblical correction. (I am equally baffled about that as well.) Therefore I have not presented my “white paper” to any of the churches in my area.
“I made my own semi-formal “white paper”
I think I’ve seen some of this in your previous postings, and as I recall some of your points had merit.
Would you be kind enough to post perhaps a few of your more on point observations?
My “white paper” is something like 20 pages long. It includes relevant Bible verses which speak directly as well as indirectly to the sanctity of human life and God’s requirement to protect human life. My “white paper” also includes recent real-world examples and simple data along with multiple secular arguments against armed self-defense and refutations of those arguments.
It would not be appropriate to post that material in the comments section of this forum. And any given single topic in my “white paper” could be its own stand-alone article on this site. I suppose I could reach out to Dan Zimmerman (director of this website) and see if he wants me to submit singular topics from my research. It could make a nice ongoing series here at The Truth about Guns.
‘minor’, be real, your only ‘white paper’ you flush when you finish crapping… 😉
I would like to read your white paper and I rather think that a lot of lurkers here on the forum that often do not post because of all the viscous mentally ill people here probably would also like to read your white paper as well.
The only one mentally ill here is you, dacian. SS wannabe with delusions of grandeur.
“Viscous’ as opposed to ‘vicious’ kind of proves your lack of education. Not that anyone that has read one of your comments needs proof.
To JWM Jethro the janitor
Your living proof in regards to my statement of the depraved people on this forum. Every one of your posts are filled with maniacal hatred. It is your trademark with a complete abstinence of constructive criticism. You never admit when someone else posts accurate information. It’s hard to believe we are dealing with a man in his 70’s considering the juvenile way you act on this forum. I have seen 4th graders give more intelligent and mature responses than you do.
I am surprised you even caught a grammatical error considering the fact that you are an a self admitted high school dropout. It was a pathetic attempt at one-upmanship.
Looking in the mirror while writing insults again, dacian? You simply project your own failings on me.
And yes. I only have a ged as far as high school goes. But I also had the GI bill after my service.
Ever hear of Marshall University?
To Jethro JWM
quote———-And yes. I only have a ged as far as high school goes. But I also had the GI bill after my service.—–quote
You fell right into that one without even realizing it. You are obviously not aware that if you did get your GED (highly doubtful) that it was paid for by a FEDERAL SOCIALIST PROGRAM, but I am sure this is way, way over your head.
Remember jerry p. of canton ohio, you were doxxed here. I’ve been to your facebook page. There was no mention of degrees or higher education. Just an unhealthy obsession with a then under age greta. t.
The only socil-lism you belong to is fascism.
dacian the demented dips***,
That you think compensating those who served to protect YOUR worthless @$$ by giving them an education that they EARNED (doing s*** that you are FAR too great a coward to even contemplate), says it all. And it is anything BUT ‘socialist’, you complete buffoon.
It is called a “social contract”, you ignorant quarter-wit, and is a bargain that SHOULD (but wasn’t always, we did stupidly flirt with the draft) be freely bargained for between sovereign individuals and the state. Research the origin of the word ‘salary’, you ignorant, uneducated moron.
Stay in your lane Sparky!
Says the guy with the funny hat, 40-foot walls and a private army…
Also he got the armored Popemoblie.
He missed the lesson in seminary that humans are fallen and some are prone to evildoing. The good don’t need to simply submit to evildoers.
With the Catholic Church, it’s spelled semen-ary.🤣
“The good don’t need to simply submit to evildoers.”
The Bible goes well beyond that: God obligates us to actively resist evildoers to the best of our ability.
Here are a few of the more poignant Bible verses which direct us to preserve/protect human life and resist evildoers. Note that these are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Psalm 82:4 – Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
Proverbs 24:11 – Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
Proverbs 25:26 – Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.
Exodus 22:2 – If a thief is found breaking in [at night] and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him …
Lord, make me fast and accurate.
Let my aim be true and my hand faster
than those who wish to harm me and mine.
Let not my last thought be “If only I had my gun”.
and Lord, if today is truly the day you are to call me home,
Let me die in a pile of empty brass.
“Beautiful Gunny, Absolutely Beautiful!”
“Sell yer cloak & buy a sword”:JESUS CHRIST. I am worse than an infidel if I don’t provide safety & protection for my loved ones. And I don’t have Swiss Guards for protection…
Pope Francis is probably the top of the food chain when it comes to creeps. Creeps don’t like it when victims defend themselves.
Meanwhile the Swiss Guard that protects him and the Vatican carry the Sig 552, MP7, GLOCK19 and numerous other weapons.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
This is simply the latest in an endless stream of examples of the Ruling Class practicing the, “rules for thee and none for me,” bit.
Yes Sir Uncommon!
Woke-a-dope Tom Hanks really outted the vatican and pedo-popster with his movie “Angels and DEMON’S” the title is accurate though.. Their little “War Room” (Armory) in the basement, all their soldiers in suits, Sig’s and pantaloons, All their “possessions” donated by their sheep faithful religiously! Pun intended, ..The vatican Bank!!!!!!!! that was just un-friggin’ believable! They are a HUGE part of the Evil Cabal and MUST be DESTROYED—end of story….
What he said.
I was about to post the same thing
“Please, let’s say something that will stop this.”
What are those magic words?
“Stop or I’ll shoot your ass!”
LMAO! There you go Jim! Well said.
You’d think he would decry the criminal element that is causing people to have to defend themselves. Guess I thought wrong.
Gipper’s Ghost, how do we know he didn’t? See below. Keep in mind, these are propagandists.
Guys, before you sound off against the Pope, keep something in mind. The media frequently selectively edits their work to push their narratives. Sometimes they flat out intentionally misrepresent the content of their interviews. I’ve noticed they have done that in the past with the Pope. That’s why I followed the link to see the entire interview. Unless I’m overlooking it, they didn’t post it. They don’t trust us to see the context of the questions and answers. Even if it was posted, how do we know they didn’t selectively edit it? Remember Katie Couric?
Now Dude, that’s a very salient and sagacious point you make there. However, I’ve heard more than enough of this Pope to know he’s a complete turd.
He occasionally sounds like a communist. I’ve seen the press misrepresent him before. I wonder how often that happens.
A flaming prog/socialist at a minimum. See as miner
Even if this article somehow distorts what the Pope said, the simple fact remains that many/most churches (of all denominations) oppose members and guests being armed for righteous self-defense–at least in church anyway if not outside of church as well. That is disturbing on many levels.
For reference church opposition to armed-self defense comes in more than one flavor. In some cases the church denomination or specific churches within a denomination publicly declare their opposition to righteous armed self-defense–at least in church if not beyond. In other cases churches quietly support local/state laws which forbid righteous armed self-defense and/or fail to sue said governments for said laws which violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In yet other cases, where local/state government laws prohibit armed self-defense in church by default but allow with explicit permission from leadership at each church, those churches quietly deny permission to members/guests who ask permission.
Of course the explanation is simple: many/most people within the church elevate emotion over Scripture and let popular culture, rather than Scripture, dominate their worldview.
I mean, I remember when the Catholic Church stood up for the Jews in the early 40s. Oh wait, never mind that didn’t happen. I bet the Jews would have liked some guns at that point.
Pope Francis kind of glazes over the fact that Jesus was killed by the government.
I’m no fan of the papacy, but looking at the source article, it appears that the AP’s headline focuses on one minor point out of a number of larger points, something that leftists do regularly. Cf. posts by minor, dacian, al, and others of their ilk. That type of deflection is a logical fallacy, but the Latin phrase for it escapes me at the moment.
I think it is bullshitimus maximus
Isn’t he related to Biggus Dickus?
Or “Dumbist Phuckist”?????
Even more ‘Monty Python’ today?
“That type of deflection is a logical fallacy, but the Latin phrase for it escapes me at the moment.”
Latin names of logical fallacies:
ad antiquitatem = the argument to antiquity or tradition
ad logicam = the “fallacy fallacy”; assuming an argument is fallacious because it was presented poorly
ad hominem = argument attacking the argument’s presenter rather than the argument
ad ignorantiam = The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary; “Appeal to Ignorance”
ad misericordiam = fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt
ad numerum = appeal to numbers; bandwagon
ad populum = argument or appeal to the public
ad verecundiam = argument or appeal to authority
Circulus in demonstrando = circular reasoning
Ad Metum = appeal to fear
Ad Novitam = appeal to novelty
Ad Passiones = appeal to emotion
An appeal to stupidity…
The Red Herring fallacy is a one of the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacies, and that was the name that was eluding me. See Aristotle for his description, Section 1, Part 6, Paragraph 5:
Or for easier reading:
And religious ‘faith’ requires exercising almost every logical fallacy, it’s quite amazing.
You are correct, strictly speaking. “Faith” is indeed false, by definition as you wrote it in highlighted form. However, faith, in its genuine form, transcends human logic. Remember, you must look along, and not at, or you will never comprehend.
“faith, in its genuine form, transcends human logic“
An assertion without evidence.
“Faith is the reason people give when they have no good reason for a belief”
Like your faith in .gov, miner? The single largest killer of people in history and you worship at its feet.
It is amusing, indeed, to witness you, who knows NOTHING about faith (of any variety) and even less about logic, arguing against faith ALLEGEDLY on the basis of knowledge of logic. Kinda like watching a moron argue with himself . . . and losing.
Avail yourself of an education, and you might begin to understand logic. Whether you ever have faith, or not, is irrelevant; I give not a single Jerry Nadler shart. I find it offensive for you to ‘attack’ faith by presenting your IGNORANT, uneducated, inexperienced straw-man “version” of faith as the real article, and then trying to set fire to said straw man with an unlit match.
Perhaps, since you possess no faith, and no KNOWLEDGE of the precepts of faith, and no understanding of the doctrines of faith, you should just shut the f*** up about things you are entirely ignorant about? Eh, MinorLiar??
NO ONE here gives an Eric Swallowswell butt toot WHAT your opinion is about anything, and most especially about faith. Or politics. Or economics. Or public policy. Or ethics. Or science. Or firearms. All subjects about which you are profoundly ignorant, deluded, indoctrinated, and plain stupid.
You remain too stupid to insult.
“Another thing is how that need to defend oneself lengthens, lengthens, and becomes a habit,””
Yeah, kind of like breathing. Eating. All those things that you need to do to live to see the next sunrise…
It’s amazing how in 2023, religious nuts like the pope are still so influential.
Way to start out the day TTAG… test my faith in humanity.
:Rolls eyes and walks away:
Is it though?
Plenty of “smart” “advanced” people take their life ques from the fictional teachings of superheroes and idolized celebrities all the time.
Humans are always looking for some extrinsic guidance and validation. Just a bunch of insecure apes wanting to be told what to do and that we’re good little children for doing so. I believe a great deal of the anti-religion crowd are just upset that an entity that large does not validate their life choices and tells them to do thing they’d rather not do so instead they deride religion and look to some other nonsense to fill their god hole like eco-religions, Jedi stuff, capeshit, consumerism, attachment to tech lords like Bezos or Musk, celebs like Rogan or Kendi or just throw in with some political scheme.
It’s all the same crap. Somebody is getting control over your life for better or worse and it isn’t you.
“anti-religion crowd are just upset that an entity that large”
Most atheists don’t even accept the proposition there is any “entity that large”.
And some even contend that even if such an entity existed they wouldn’t willingly worship such an immoral mass murderer.
But no one’s ever demonstrated the possibility such an entity could exist, much less its actual existence so the point is moot.
COOL STORY, BRO!!!!! Now give us your proof that God doesn’t exist. Show us ignorant, Bible-thumping heathens how a brilliant scholar like you proves a negative.
I have concluded that you are unable to comprehend what a complete @$$clown you actually are. You obviously think you are smart. In that, as in all other things, you are profoundly deluded.
I wonder if the pope is aware that in the era before antibiotics, all those swords, knives, spears, slngs, etc people were carrying for defense were very lethal, even for small wounds.
Once again, catholocism doesn’t understand the Bible…
King Henry may have had a great idea when he kicked the Pope out of religion. England thrived for centuries well surpassing the rest of Europe. This was at least in part because far less English gold ended up being shipped off to Rome and instead stayed in England.
And yet his own Swiss Guard detail is armed to the teeth. Also, Jesus’s Apostles carried swords, the guns of their day.
The Pope is trying to hold ordinary people to a moral standard that neither he himself nor literal Saints could live up to.
“Instead of making the effort to help us live, we make the effort to help us kill.”
He completely misunderstands the purpose of a gun for self-defense – it is literally “making the effort to help us live”!
The Pope seems to conveniently overlook Luke 22:36 “He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” In verse 38, two disciples produce two swords. and Jesus says “That’s enough”.
And the power of Christ compels you
And the power of Christ compels you.
Yeegads I think I’m having a heart attack.
The Church needs to stay out of politics just like politics needs to stay out of the Church.
“The Church needs to stay out of politics just like politics needs to stay out of the Church”
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
IN A F***ING LETTER, you complete @$$clown. And T. Jefferson was NOT the author of either the Constitution, OR the BoR. But, in the document he DID author, the Declaration of Independence, he rather had a number of references to a higher power, didn’t he???
YES, you complete dolt, government is not supposed to act for or against any particular religion. But nothing, NOT A SINGLE WORD, in the DoI, the Constitution, or the BoR, prohibits or discourages a politician from having faith, acting on the basis of such faith, using such faith to inform their policy decisions, or even PROSELYTIZING about their faith – which, if you had even a semblance of an education, or a scintilla of wit, you would know.
Go expire in an excavation, you useless dolt.
Pope, schmope. I grew up a hard core Lutheran, and they told me the pope was the antichrist.
I guess they weren’t wrong.
Johnny, Same here (Lutheran) growing up in New York Shitty! Heard that message often…We were told though to “keep it to ourselves” because “other” religions would try to destroy us for that belief….Religion, nice…you can keep all of ’em away from me…
I have ONE religion now, The power of the Gunm. Instead of Genuflicting for my soul, I believe in the Almighty HEADSHOT! May GOD make me fast and Accurate.
I didn’t take it seriously for a long time, but I made my kids go to church when they were young, and it wasn’t nearly as hard core as when I was a kid. But the evil insanity I’m seeing today … the church may have been right all along.
“I grew up a hard core Lutheran, and they told me the pope was the antichrist“
The Lutherans say a lot of things, many of them reprehensible religious bullshit:
“Martin Luther, German theologian and key figure in the Protestant Reformation, lent even further credence to the blood libel charge by accepting the Jewish use of Christian blood as fact in his On the Jews and their Lies (published in 1543)“
I’m sorry, MinorLiar, please educate this poor faith-deluded person – what tenet of what religion, exactly, postulates either the divinity, or the infallibility of Martin Luther?
And, since you like to prove what an ignorant @$$clown you are, please explain to us the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Be religious, be agnostic, be an atheist; I don’t give a f***. But stop talking out your @$$ about subjects on which you are wholly ignorant. Of course, that would silence you entirely, so I guess it’s a twofer.
He should stick to praying and leave the rest of us who live in the real world alone, The Pope’s advice has never had a bearing on my life. I agree it is a good practice to treat others with respect, dignity and or empathy until be their actions or words change that. Then F#&k them.
@Dan Z — This article’s headline refers to Pope Frances.
Is that a typo or are you calling Pope Francis a girly-man?
I’ll start taking you seriously when you put the same effort into cleaning up the Catholic priesthood, and it’s child-grooming scandals, as you do to touting your Leftist bulls***. And you are the major reason I no longer attend Mass, you pathetic Leftist/fascist liar. You remind me of MinorLiar – always wrong, but NEVER uncertain. And you both share a belief in a “higher power” – Marxism.
How many guns are used in guarding him?
quote———– Francis said. “Instead of making the effort to help us live, we make the effort to help us kill.”———-quote
The Pope is correct because all one has to do is look at the statistics. In the “uncivilized” primitive land of Capitalvania a gun in the hand of a viscous naked ape will make it a certainty that he will use it to kill someone in a fit of anger before he can think of the consequences of his actions. This is why most civilized countries outlaw concealed carry because their “overall” lower death rate from firearms proved this was the correct way to go.
Road rage deaths alone is proof enough that you cannot trust the Naked Ape with a gun in his hand. Never mind shootouts over parking spaces.
In Capitalvania the stingy, tightwad, greed monger Republicans put money over human life every time and the deraigned sadists even encourage people to shoot it out in a robbery even though statistics prove that more people die in a shootout in a robbery than just handing over their wallet.
As President Clinton once said “For God sakes stop the madness”. Unfortunately he did not understand the primitive homicidal mind of the Far Right.
You just revel in your stupidity don’t you? The reason people carry is to protect life not to end it you mouth breathing knuckle dragging ape.
“As President Clinton once said “For God sakes stop the madness”. Unfortunately he did not understand the primitive homicidal mind of the Far Right.”
Or that of your communist heroes, with some 100 million dead. That’s a lot of blood on your hands there, Lady Macbeth.
dacian the demented dips***,
What does the viscosity of alopecia-ridden anthropoids have to do with anything????
Do you use apesweat as a gun lube on your (fantasy) firearms??
Or are you just an ignoranus who is so bereft of understanding of the English language (as you are bereft of understanding on EVERY other subject) that you cannot manage to use it correctly??
Or is it the horse kicking in again? Maybe ‘shrooms??
I wholeheartedly agree disarm the swiss guard. Defending oneself after all only “lengthens the habit”. Oh you only meant the little people huh Francis.
Actual Catholic self defense dogma, from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 13, Page 691:
Self-Defense.—Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding the right of self-defense. The teaching may be summarized as follows:
DEFENSE OF LIFE AND PERSON.—Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed, however, that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. Generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one’s own life at the expense of the assailant’s; one may, out of charity, forego one’s right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one’s own life to the utmost on account of one’s duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposes the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY—It is lawful to defend one’s material goods even at the expense of the aggressor’s life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor’s life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive our neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means: if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.
HONOUR.—Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one’s material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honor or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we believe he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. This proceeding would not be defense of our honor or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.
Red Francis is not speaking ex cathedra here, so he is not creating new doctrine. Just pandering to his left wing base.
“HONOUR.—Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one’s material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order”
Oh great, honor killings…
Nah, not really miner. In your haste to besmirch, you didn’t read far enough along.
It all depends on what one thinks “defense of chastity” means.
You catch your 18-year-old neighbor out in the barn pulling down your 17-year-old daughter’s pants, can you take his life under this doctrine?
I can understand why Uncommon Sense is reluctant to share his “white paper” with you, as it would only give you fodder to misquote, cherry pick, and pass judgment on every small point — as you so often demonstrate.
1 Peter 3:15
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”
“If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”–Luke 9:5
Anybody can quote Scripture.
As noted prior, you are looking at the beam of light rather than along it, and you’re picking at the dust particles you see.
Would you freakin’ STOP, already??? Analogizing “Defense of Honour”, as taught by the Catholic Church, has exactly ZERO in common with the Islamic doctrine of “honor killing”. The Catholic Church (and to my knowledge, any Christian church) does not follow the pernicious and evil doctrine of the Islamic form of “honor killing” – which you KNEW; you’re just being a tendentious @$$hole.
And, so you should be aware, neither do the vast majority of devout Muslims. “Honor killing” is an evil practice of a fundamentalist minority of Muslims – primarily the same group that would practice, oh, say . . . clitorectomies.
But don’t let your ignorant, anti-religious bigotry be silenced; we all want to hear what the stupid have to say on subjects they don’t understand.
Have a nice day, @$$hole.
This is why the road to Jericho is so infested.
He’s kinda’ stupid, isn’t he.
Im a southern baptist he is a nothing burger deluxe combo to me…