Wednesday, January 07, 2015

pope going full-in on warsocialism


Western Catholic Reporter | Pope Francis, who has already broken new ground in his outreach to a suffering humanity, has put the weight of the Catholic Church behind a new humanitarian movement to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
The pope sent a message to the recent conference in Vienna, attended by more than 150 governments, to advance public understanding of what is now called the "catastrophic humanitarian consequences" of any use of the 16,300 nuclear weapons possessed by nine countries.
In his message, delivered by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, a leading Holy See diplomat, Pope Francis stripped away any lingering moral acceptance of the military doctrine of nuclear deterrence: "Nuclear deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction cannot be the basis for an ethics of fraternity and peaceful coexistence."
He called for a worldwide dialogue, including both the nuclear and non-nuclear states and the burgeoning organizations that make up civil society, "to ensure that nuclear weapons are banned once and for all to the benefit of our common home."
Pope Francis has now put his firm stamp on the Church's rejection of nuclear weapons, to the enormous satisfaction of the delegates crowding the Vienna conference. No longer can the major powers, still defending their right to keep possessing nuclear weapons, claim the slightest shred of morality for their actions.
The pope's stand was supported by a remarkable Vatican document, Nuclear Disarmament: Time for Abolition, also put before the Vienna conference. The document did not mince words: "Now is the time to affirm not only the immorality of the use of nuclear weapons, but the immorality of their possession, thereby clearing the road to abolition."
The Church has now put behind it the limited acceptance of nuclear deterrence it gave at the height of the Cold War. That acceptance was given only on the condition that nuclear deterrence lead progressively to disarmament.
Washington, London and Paris, the three Western nuclear capitals where the Church's words influence, to some degree, government policy, used this limited acceptance to justify their continued nuclear buildup.
When the Cold War ended, they continued modernizing their arsenals and refused demands, reiterated at the UN many times, to join in comprehensive negotiations with Moscow and Beijing.

13 comments:

CNu said...

Does that mean they're in the clutches of not-see-ism?

Dale Asberry said...

Yessir. It's gradually taking over, sadly.

ken said...

If so, age makes you quicker to judge as you get older, I wonder why in this story it was noted the oldest decided not to cast the stone before they youngest.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NKJV

BigDonOne said...

Ow! Ooooh! OUCH!!
My hands are up and I can't breathe........

Dale Asberry said...

That is curious, non? More curiously, what and why did he write on the ground?

Dale Asberry said...

Lol, when you behave yourself and act in an honest manner, I have no need to smack you upside the head. In fact, I thought you made a good point... worthy of elucidation so that you could understand why I riffed in that direction.

ken said...

Here would be what I thought was the most contextual explanation to that story.

http://www.torahclass.com/old-testament-studies/37-old-testament-studies-numbers/201-lesson-7-chapter5

CNu said...

I sincerely doubt Kunstler would consider himself racist, or, his support for Israel pro-racist. I'd bet his overarching self-identification is "pro-civilization" - most ironically - the exact civilization he skewers for the evolutionary failure of suburban sprawl. There's a very big hole in his bucket.

CNu said...

How do you think they self-identify, i.e., what do they consider themselves?

CNu said...

You had a point you wished to make Ken. Just make it without the faux exegetical digression.

Dale Asberry said...

Very big indeed.

Dale Asberry said...

Liberal and open-minded, patriotic, and, Christian.

Dale Asberry said...

Although the author provided some great context, I think his conclusions are wrong. This parable most definitely is suggesting that only sinless people should be throwing stones and it most definitely is about Jesus showing mercy to this woman particularly because of the hypocrisy. Those priests also didn't believe that he was The Living Water so if he was writing those symbols, it would be heretical and he would be caught in the trap they set. No, Jesus wrote something that shamed them into leaving because nothing else Jesus stands for would work on cowards.