Replies

Nice start, but does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church?

Seems I recall some apologists attempting to make the claim that it does not, regarding a statement in support of recent gun restriction and control efforts by the Obama administration.

So, does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church, or not? If not, should it too cease being called Catholic?

It is the job of of the Press Office to release reports or other info from Vatican. If a member uses it to give their opinion on an issue, then it is just their opinion. The resent remark about guns was somewhat on the order of “it is good to limit violence”, which even the NRA would agree with.

You wrote:

“So, does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church, or not?”

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.

“If not, should it too cease being called Catholic?”

Has it ever been called ‘Catholic’? I don’t think so.

You now have your answers. See how easy that was?

Nice start, but does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church? Seems I recall some apologists attempting to make the claim that it does not, regarding a statement in support of recent gun restriction and control efforts by the Obama administration. So, does the Press Office of the Holy See speak for the church, or not? If not, should it too cease being called Catholic?

Ahh yes....that word "speak" again (see post 22).

Yes, it's supposed to "speak" for the Church. It handles press releases and interacts with the press, in a somewhat similar manner to the way the White House Press Secretary handles relations with the media. However, sometimes things go wrong and the guy out front will say something which hasn't been cleared with the Chief. A "clarification" will then be issued and damage control will ensue. I think folks understand this situation.

With regard to the subject of this thread, readers will doubtless understand the difference between a decades long, deliberate campaign of dissent and revolt against essential and non negotiable aspects of Catholic faith and teaching (The Reporter) and a single, off-the-cuff remark on an issue not central to the deposit of faith by a Press Officer (Lombardi).

This individual wrote an essay supporting gun control. He did not do so in his capacity as Press Secretary. It would be like Jay Carney writing an essay for the Washington Post. It would be a way to voice his opinion, but it would not necessarily be "speaking for" the Administration.

The Chruch's teachings on self defense are crystal clear, and this liberal Italian's personal opinions do not trump the magisterial teachings of Popes and the Catechism.

In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:

"......Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense."

He goes on to say:

"...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."

Pope John Paul II knew exactly what happens when innocents are disarmed, having lived under both Nazism and communism. He did not believe in disarming citizens and neither does the Catholic Church, this spokesperson's personal opinion notwithstanding.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on self defense:

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.

When you look at the highlighted areas from both Pope John Paul II and the Catechism, it is crystal clear that the Church teaches that the family has the right to defend itself, including the use of deadly force.

If Rev. Federico Lombardi of the Vatican Press office prefers Fettucini Alfredo over Veal Parmagiana, that does not means that Catholics must follow his lead. Likewise as to gun control. He is a liberal airhead who was embarrassing Blessed ohn Paul II before he started embarrassing Benedict XVI. Gun control is not a matter of faith or morals.

Much of the content of the National "catholic" Reporter does deal with faith and morals, from a decidedly anti-Catholic point of view. Lately, it has been edging ever closer to being an apologist for abortion as well as women's ordination, birth control (the one "sacrament" clearly and enthusiastically supported by NCR).

The NCR has editorialized that young Bishop Finn (generally a conservative and therefore in NCR's view guilty of actual Catholicism) should resign because he was murkily convicted of not putting some kiddie porn viewing priest immediately into outer darkness and was convicted in a court of law. However, predecessors of Bishop Finn have been denouncing NCR as a non-Catholic fraud posing as "catholic" for many years.