“There are quarrels and arguments in the Church? Well, it makes good news! This is so since the beginning… A church without quarrels is a dead church. Do you know where there aren’t any quarrels? In cemeteries!” http://fatima.org/perspectives/ef/perspective746.asp
Does anyone want to quarrel about this strange comment from Pope Francis?.... https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-says...cant-call-themselves-christian-184139430.html
Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian. Honestly, who is happy with this statement?[quarrel time]
I am half asleep.. not feeling my best. But I must say in good charity: what is the purpose of quarreling for the sake of quarreling; can it not cause one to lose a friend rather than gain one for the kingdom... what spirit is this? On the face of it. I can see nothing wrong with what St. Peter's successor has said here; word for word. 'Put down your weapon Peter.' There is a better way: The weapons I know that have great value in battle are the manufacturers of the Holy Rosary. You do well to arm yourselves here. "Bring me my weapon" St. Padre Pio. That it may bring peace and victory to the eternal soul. Not death. God bless!
Rome has been publicly targeted by ISIS. Does the Pope want the Italian authorities responsible for the defense of the Vatican City-state to foreswear all use of weapons for its defense? ISIS is just across the Mediterranean and infiltrating Italy with the boat refugees. Legitimate defense 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 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. 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. 2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
A dispassionate discussion is simply a debate. Debate is a good thing and an integral element in the historical development of the teachings of the Church. Debate only becomes quarrel when emotion overwhelms the discussion. And that usually happens when one party questions the motives of, or ascribes motives to, the other. (Or accuses the other of grave sin for holding an opinion contrary to their own, as was witnessed on this forum yesterday.) That can be avoided and the moderators can assist in preventing debates from becoming quarrels if they are vigilant and steadfast.
Yes but I don't want to be spending too much time policing. I want to post on spiritual matters as I think Our Lady wants me too. We are all adults and hopefully should police ourselves. Hopefully.
Its just about been respectful and good mannered maybe on a good day being loving and kind. Which should come easy to a good Prayerful Catholic. But actually people on the forum are very ,very good almost always. Thanks be to God and His Blessed Mother.
I have only been back in the Church for a year after many years (decades of being away), I have to admit that when I first came back and took a look at the actions of the Church hierarchy I was astonished and very upset. At first I went around constantly criticizing the clergy and Pope for all of their faults and failings. Over the past year, I have come to attempt (often unsuccessfully) to modify that view. I try to follow what Malachi Martin said which is that we are allowed to validly discuss and point out error in things they say, but above all we must have respect for them and their posts. This is true especially of the Pope as the person God himself chose for that post in this place and time. We are supposed to give the Pope every charity. I also recall the words of many saints who have said never criticize a priest. Many things this Pontiff says are taken out of context, plus they can be lost in translation. For example the word he used for “quarrel” may be more akin to our word “debate”. It may not, I don't know. There are many subtleties in language. I will give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. If he truly felt any arms at all were a great evil he has the power to disarm the Swiss Guard. Since he hasn't done so, I will assume he was speaking off the cuff and referring to missile developers or some such. Military grade weapons producers are a far cry from the question “Does a person have a right to defend their own home and family with a weapon from an intruder?” In essence I have taken the tact (for my own spiritual growth) to follow the words of the saints and never criticize a priest. I will report facts that are official, public and contradict Church teaching. For example if the Pope came out and said “The Church is now going to recognize homosexual marriage and this is binding on all Catholics” that would need to be reported and resisted. I choose not to niggle over every utterance this Pope makes on the street though. We must remember with charity that the devil is focusing on the clergy at this time and diabolically deluding them. Our part is to pray for them and the massive daily demonic attacks they are under. I am not trying to tell anybody else what to do or say, this is just my opinion on the subject.
For once I do have a bit of the problem with what the Pope said about weapons and being a Christian. I actually understand his point on a grander scale and perfect utopia. For example, there would never have been a weapons manufacturer in the Garden of Eden which is where we must all strive to get back into so to speak but the world is not the garden of eden. But I am a bit troubled that our Holy Father would call all people who work at such industries hypocrites and not Christian. I am really confused over this remark. Where does this line of thinking go. If someone works for a weapon's company, in the Pope's mind have they committed mortal sin? Further, can they not receive communion. Where is the line. What if someone does not work in a weapons facility but say is a master in martial arts? They do this for pure defense but they are a weapon. If in a court of law you have defended yourself against an attack or helped in defense of another and say greatly injured or even killed a man in defense, because you are a black belt it can be held against you as manslaughter because the court would argue that you know better than most in how to fight. I am troubled because Jesus did say put down your sword but never said to carry one would result in the soul's damnation. He just said if you live by the sword you will die by the sword, but what does this "death" mean? Surely it is death of the body but not eternal death of the soul in hell. This is quite confusing and disheartening because I for one would always defend my family, friends or anyone less fortunate from those causing harm. I could never stand there with my neck out so to speak and my cheek turned to an attacker and let him kill me and those who can't defend themselves. Further, what does this say about all those who own weapons or all those who are police or military and carry them? Are they too not Christian? I do not believe in killing in any sort (not even the death penalty in today's society) but feel that the Lord would forgive those who killed in defense of themselves or others if the person truly had remorse for the killing and truly felt it was the only thing they could do but this article would seem to lead to anyone who killed with a weapon is a hypocrite and is not a Christian. Also the Pope contradicts himself in this article when he spoke of WW2. He mentioned that they should have bombed the train tracks into concentration camps but it was a weapon manufacturer that would make the bombs so though he would have wanted the tracks bombed, those making the bombs would not have been Christian to him? Very puzzling article and I hope it is another one of those taken completely out of context.
"But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword." Unfortunately, there comes a time when using a weapon is necessary. Those who "live by the sword" are those who dedicate their lives to using force and violence.....like ISIS
I read a very funny strange thing about the most evil Pope in History , Pope Alexander VI (Cesare Borgia) who was without doubt the most evil Pope and one of the most evil men in history. You name it, he did it. Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (later Pope Leo X) is said to have warned after the election, "Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all".[15] So back in those far off days people had the most extraordinary respect for saints /visionaries considering them the direct intermediaries from God. Apparently Pope Alexander was out travelling round Italy when a local nun who had a tremendous reputation in Italy as a saint/ visionary called to see see Pope Alexander and read him the riot act in front of his guards and court calling him pretty well every name in the book. Apparently Alexander and his cohorts and guards sat quiet as mice while this remarkable lady tore into him in a lengthy harang telling him basically he was going to hell in a hurry. No one Pope included moved a muscle they were all quiet as mice and took it. When the nun was finished she marched out in one piece, and nothing ever happened to her. I would have liked to have seen that. You can hear about this nun here:
