1. You did not address the Church’s position on universal disarmament.
2. I am currently serving in the military (NG, but I spend 25% of my time called up on AD). Landmines are essential to us. Without them, more of us will die. Rome can stick their opinion of how we fight where the sun don’t shine.
3. Providing for the general welfare is not defined and, as you say, is left to the people. The RC document cited *defines* the common good as the provision of jobs, food, housing and, yes, health care, to every single individual and states that individuals and the state are *required* to provide these to all individuals because those things are “human rights.” There is a massive difference between us voting ourselves stupid and the hierarchs in the RC church telling us that we *must* do these things.
I’m Eastern Orthodox and our bishops have as many problems as yours. I’ve never understood why RCs are so stubborn in not acknowledging what their bishops incorrectly and flagrantly espouse.
It just doesn't work that the selfsame church would advocate "universal and complete disarmament" when it has been defended, repeatedly, by force of arms.
I understand the vital nature of landmines--especially to lareg area defense, and am glad the US didn't buy into the international conventions against them.
We have also developed cluster munitions which detonate after time, provided they function correctly. In fact, we (the US) have spent fortunes developing weapons which are not indiscriminate in killing those not specifically targeted, and continue to do so (concrete filled laser guided bombs used as kinetic weapons in lieu of levelling a block or two are a good and recent example). As for ordinary small arms, that was not what I read in your excerpt.
Given a small force and a large amount of terrain, I'd use landmines, too. (Just police the area after you win, or have the means to render the mines ineffective). Consider that tons of munitions (UXO) are dug up annually in Europe alone, the legacy of the last couple of big wars there (and even still live shells on our own Civil War Battlefields), I can see where the Church may be coming from, but that doesn't mean I completely agree.
Nowhere in the statement you cited did I see anything about rifles, pistols, guided munitions, or other conventional and personal weapons, nor even artillery, bombs, or other arms normally used in warfare, with the exception of landmines. As the landmine hadn't been developed yet when the Second Amendment was written, I see little conflict there.
While it might be an effective way to keep the neighbors' pets from soiling your lawn (more than once), most people are neither likely to posess nor to employ them because of their inherent inability to distinguish between genuine threats and acciedental incursions which carry a liability aspect far beyond the benefit of keeping unwanted intruders out. Even our own government froens on the concept of mining the back 40 or mounting claymores to keep varmints out of the garden.
Still, there is a big difference between a disagreement over which weapons of war to employ and requiring the Church to pay for practices which violate doctrine.
The US Government using landmines is nowhere the same as requiring the Catholic Church to buy insurance which pays for abortions.