We have not opined on the "Leo vs. Trump" narrative. Here we go.
1) Leo decried war, using language which implied that God is not happy about warmongers, either. No doh. But God does not forbid war. Never did, never will. That's why there is Just War Theory.
Trump, being Trump, took it personally. He never thought that Leo could be talking to Israel, or to Iran, or to Hezbollah. But Leo certainly COULD have been talking to them; they deserve a good talking-to.
By the way, Just War Theory allows heads of States to determine whether a threat is serious and imminent enough to counteract with a 'first strike.' Therefore, Trump's smackdown of Iran is well within Trump's purview and authority. We happen to disagree about his action, as this is Israel's war, not ours--but Trump has the advantage there.
2) Leo talked smack about US treatment of illegal aliens--yet he acknowledged, out loud, that countries have the right (and duty) to control their borders and immigration policy. There are a FEW instances of ICE behaving badly, but Leo's indiscriminate and broad condemnation of ICE's procedures is simply unwarranted, and likely the result of his taking seriously the activist reports lies about what happened here or there with ICE. Trump has the advantage here, too.
3) Finally, Leo mentioned that the Church does not approve of the Death Penalty. What Leo did NOT mention was that this is old news. St. John Paul II was very clear: countries which could afford life-in-prison for certain crimes should use that instead of the DP. The US happens to be one of those countries, so Leo is correct--as it pertains to the US and a number of other First World countries--as he hints in his statement.
But Leo got silly when he yapped about 'depriving [criminals] of the possibility of redemption' by using the DP. In reality? Nothing concentrates one's attention better than the realization of certain near-term death. "Redemption" can be accomplished in the time it takes to say "I am sorry" and mean it--preferably to a priest. So this is a half-Trump/half-Leo point.
Taken in total: Trump acted and spoke exactly as all his enemies hoped he would. Leo spoke--as he often does--with a lack of precision.
Both would do well to use their spokes-critters more often.
9 comments:
…..countries which could afford life-in-prison for certain crimes should use that instead of the DP……
OK
Tell me this:
How big does the national debt have to be before we can no longer afford life in prison?
Really? You're measuring life against lucre? And you want us to believe that you're "conservative," too?
One might say that redemption is most likely efficacious according to the Church when it is accompanied by a sincere confession and Last Rites, followed immediately by the removal of the occasion for any further sinning.
It was an abbot and Papal legate leading the Albigensian Crusade (later an archbishop) who said, "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." The English version was popular with the Marines and Soldiers in Vietnam, fighting the godless Communists.
…In any case, this is a sentence reportedly uttered by the Papal legate Arnaud Amalric prior to the Béziers massacre (July 22nd, 1209) at the start of the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229), when about 20,000 inhabitants of the town were slaughtered irrespective of their age, sex, and of whether they were Cathars or Catholic.
The sentence is in part a quote from 2 Timothy 2:19, where it is written “The Lord knoweth them that are his”. Apparently, Amalric used it when it was suggested to him that some Catholics were also within the city walls.
Its meaning is clear enough: “Kill them all; God will welcome the Catholics among them”, or, more literally, “Kill them all; God will recognise those who are his”.
caedite is the imperative plural of the verb caedo, -is, caecidi, caesum, caedere, (3rd) “to cut”, “to kill”
eos and eius are respectively (i) the accusative plural and (ii) the genitive singular of is, ea, id a demonstrative/personal pronoun. caedite eos therefore means “kill them (all)” and qui sunt eius “those who are his”
novit is the perfect, third person singular, of nosco, -is, novi, notum, noscere (3rd), “to know”
enim , a conjunction meaning “for”
dominus nominative form of dominus, -a (2nd decl.) “master”, in this case “the Lord”, “God”
qui is the nominative, first person plural, of the relative pronoun qui, quae, quod
sunt third person plural of sum, es, fui, esse, “to be”……..
Ok. I need to read up on just war theory a bit more
…..St. John Paul II was very clear: countries which could afford life-in-prison for certain crimes should use that instead of the DP. The US happens to be one of those countries….
OK, give me any example of country in the world that is exempt?
If the United States is not exempt, then Surely, you can show me a country that is exempt?
Greg
I’m just struggling against my sinful fallen nature
And seeking clarity
Greg, read my post for meaning. The USA can afford life-in-prison, thus the USA should not use the DP. At one time, European nations were also rich enough to afford life-in-prison.
Anony 8:32.........I know who you are.......
I wasn't anonymous. At least on my screen, I show as logged-in.
Post a Comment