Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ender]

He also said that he that lives by the Sword™ shall die by the Sword™.

This comment was never meant to suggest that self defense (by sword or gun) was improper.And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority… (St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[pnewton]

There would appear to be, however, reason to believe his opinion is less well informed than some of those that have been expressed here.

After reading some of the posts here, that is something I can simply not agree with. You may have your reasons to trust the opinions here as being better informed, but I find it hard to give anonymous post weight, devoid of authority, credentials, and too often, logic. Even grammar and spelling are a stretch for some.

 

[Ender]

Cars are designed for transportation and bathtubs for cleansing. None of the have the primary function of killing. Change the function, then it becomes a moral issue,…

No, it doesn’t. Swords are designed for killing and the church has never had a prohibition against owning, carrying, or using swords in self defense. There is no moral question involved in defending oneself and it doesn’t matter what tools are involved. The only relevant question is whether the force used was appropriate to the threat; the mere ownership of a weapon has never raised a moral concern. The question comes from how it is used, not how it functions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

After reading some of the posts here, that is something I can simply not agree with. You may have your reasons to trust the opinions here as being better informed, but I find it hard to give anonymous post weight, devoid of authority, credentials, and too often, logic. Even grammar and spelling are a stretch for some.

I asked the question earlier if the bill that Bishop Blair supported was the one that has been withdrawn and that has been uniformly criticized as being poorly constructed even by those who support the bishop’s comments. If that is so then it seems undeniable that the bishop’s high opinion of the bill was misplaced. Given that a fair number of posters here opposed the bill and were specific in their objections it is reasonable to conclude that they were better informed about the bill.

Beyond that, however, his support of a very flawed bill goes to the point of the moral question involved. How is it more moral to support bad legislation than to oppose it? If this really was a moral question then what would we have to conclude about a church that gave poor moral advice? Since, however, there was no moral nature to Bishop Blair’s advice, his mistaken position reflects on him alone and not on the church or her doctrines.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

I asked the question earlier if the bill that Bishop Blair supported was the one that has been withdrawn and that has been uniformly criticized as being poorly constructed even by those who support the bishop’s comments. If that is so then it seems undeniable that the bishop’s high opinion of the bill was misplaced. Given that a fair number of posters here opposed the bill and were specific in their objections it is reasonable to conclude that they were better informed about the bill.

Beyond that, however, his support of a very flawed bill goes to the point of the moral question involved. How is it more moral to support bad legislation than to oppose it? If this really was a moral question then what would we have to conclude about a church that gave poor moral advice? Since, however, there was no moral nature to Bishop Blair’s advice, his mistaken position reflects on him alone and not on the church or her doctrines.

Ender

Why are you shifting the discussion from Bishop Blaire to Bishop Blair?

By all accounts, Bishop Blair is doing an outstanding job as the Bishop of Toledo. He is very outspoken against Obamacare, he has stopped parishes from supporting the pro-abortion group Susan G. Komen, he was very active in the oversight of the LCWR group…all in all, he seems like a really stand-up guy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This comment was never meant to suggest that self defense (by sword or gun) was improper.And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority… (St. Bellarmine)
Ender

Ver. 52. Then Jesus saith to him, Put up again thy sword into his place. Christ here reproves Peter’s rashness in drawing his sword against His wish. Peter’s sin, then, was twofold: first in striking against Christ’s wish, and next, because this was an act not so much of defence as of revenge, which did not help to deliver Christ from the soldiers, but rather excited them the more against Him. But Peter, says S. Chrysostom, was hurried on by his eagerness to protect Christ, and did not think of this, but remembered rather His words, that Christ had ordered them to take two swords, inferring that it was for His defence. And accordingly he thought that in striking the servant he was acting according to the mind of Christ, “Let revenge cease, let patience be exhibited,” says the Interlinear Gloss.
For all they that take the sword (without proper authority). To strike, i.e., and wound others. To take the sword by public authority to punish the guilty, or in a just war, is lawful and honest.
Shall perish with the sword. Deserve thus to perish (Gen_9:6) (see Aug. Quæst. V. and N. T., cap. civ.). Homicides, moreover, and gladiators very often die violent deaths in war or by casualties (see Act 28:4).
And Christ here insinuates that the Jews would perish by the swords of the Romans. S. Luke adds that Christ said, “Suffer ye thus far.” “Cease to draw your swords, ye have contended sufficiently,” just as we part two combatants. But Cajetan explains otherwise, “Suffer the Jews to rage against Me, while their hour lasts, and the power of darkness.” Hence Maldonatus and others infer that the other Apostles, when they saw S. Peter’s zeal, wished to fight for Him also, but were forbidden by Christ. For, says S. Ambrose (in Luke xxii.), He who wished to save all by His own wounds, wished not to be saved by the wounding of His persecutors. Whence the motto, “Health by wounds,” which is specially applicable to Christ, by whose stripes we are healed (1Pe_2:24).

Chrys., Hom. lxxxiv: So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, “He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one;” [Luke 22:36] and the disciples answered, “Lo, here are two swords.”

It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.

Jerome: In another Gospel [marg. note: John 18:19], Peter is represented as having done this, and with his usual hastiness; and that the servant’s name was Malchus, and that the ear was the right ear. In passing we may say, that Malchus, i.e. one who should have been king of the Jews, was made the slave of the ungodliness and the greediness of the Priests, and lost his right ear so that he might hear only the worthlessness of the letter in his left.

Origen: For though they seem even now to hear the Law, yet is it only with the left ear that they hear the shadow of a tradition concerning the Law, and not the truth. The people of the Gentiles is signified by Peter; for by believing in Christ, they become the cause of cutting off the Jews’ right ear.

Raban.: Or, Peter does not take away the sense of understanding from them that hear, but opens to the careless that which by a divine sentence was taken away from them; but this same right ear is restored to its original function in those who out of this nation believed.

Hilary: Otherwise; The ear of the High Priest’s servant is cut off by the Apostle, that is, Christ’s disciple cuts off the disobedient hearing of a people which were the slaves of the Priesthood, the ear which had refused to hear is cut off so that it is no longer capable of hearing.

Leo, Serm. 22: The Lord of the zealous Apostle will not suffer his pious feeling to proceed further, “Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place.” For it was contrary to the sacrament of our redemption that He, who had come to die for all, should refuse to be apprehended. He gives therefore licence to their fury against Him, lest by putting off the triumph of His glorious Cross, the dominion of the Devil should be made longer, and the captivity of men more enduring.

Raban.: It behoved also that the Author of grace should teach the faithful patience by His own example, and should rather train them to endure adversity with fortitude, than incite them to self-defence.

Chrys.: To move the disciple to this, He adds a threat, saying, “All they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Each bishop is responsible for his own diocese and no bishop can make any statement at all that is binding on another bishop. The head of a committee can obviously speak but his comments carry no weight outside of his own area of responsibility.
It wouldn’t matter if the pope offered his opinion. The prudential judgments of one bishop have no significance whatever outside his own diocese.
One bishop does not have to offer correction for what another has said. If he does not positively confirm it for his diocese the comment is meaningless … and I am unaware of many bishops lining up to support Bishop Blair’s opinion.
You are quite free to find direction wherever you choose as are we all but there is no reason to believe that the direction Bishop Blair has provided on this issue is any more moral than the opinions offered on this forum. There would appear to be, however, reason to believe his opinion is less well informed than some of those that have been expressed here.

Ender

So, we can pick and choose the bishop that doesn’t speak against our own personal interests? Of course not.

 

[CaptFun]

If that verse supported ‘weapon’ rights, why did the early Church suffer such martyrdom for over 300 years? Seriously, that misapplied verse has been responded to multiple times, with Catholic commentaries, and the early Church fathers. I guess some missed it.

Do you have a take on why Jesus said this at all?

Yes the Church suffered martyrdom (individuals followed Jesus in that).

But he said it … and meant something by it. The Church teaches the right of self-defense which can approach a duty.

< Why the eye roll in your take? The sell your cloak and buy a sword idea is not something I made up. I did observe that Jesus Himself BRINGS it up on purpose when it doesn’t appear He needed to.

I’m in the middle on gun control. I don’t own one myself. Think there should be some “control” – but realize there IS a lot of control already, we are not starting from scratch nor for the most part living in “Dodge City”.

The Bishop notwithstanding, I’ve noticed that politicians that can’t be trusted on more important matters are pushing for this hard (with themselves in charge of the implementation it would appear). So I find myself uncomfortably supporting gun ownership for others … with its dangers … versus a program that would strip us of the Second Amendment bit by bit in ways that will have the effect of criminals becoming more powerful and the populace more vulnerable to them. Or to a very bad Government in the future.

Issue by issue I could go WITH more gun control where sensible. Domestic machine guns are not needed. Handguns? A tougher call. But a small woman who needs to defend herself needn’t have to wrestle about with a rifle with a kick that knocks her over if she is threatened. (Sometimes a stern look and a command voice doesn’t deter a criminal from doing their violence).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you have a take on why Jesus said this at all?

Yes the Church suffered martyrdom (individuals followed Jesus in that).

But he said it … and meant something by it. The Church teaches the right of self-defense which can approach a duty.

< Why the eye roll in your take? The sell your cloak and buy a sword idea is not something I made up. I did observe that Jesus Himself BRINGS it up on purpose when it doesn’t appear He needed to.

I’m in the middle on gun control. I don’t own one myself. Think there should be some “control” – but realize there IS a lot of control already, we are not starting from scratch nor for the most part living in “Dodge City”.

The Bishop notwithstanding, I’ve noticed that politicians that can’t be trusted on more important matters are pushing for this hard (with themselves in charge of the implementation it would appear). So I find myself uncomfortably supporting gun ownership for others … with its dangers … versus a program that would strip us of the Second Amendment bit by bit in ways that will have the effect of criminals becoming more powerful and the populace more vulnerable to them. Or to a very bad Government in the future.

Issue by issue I could go WITH more gun control where sensible. Domestic machine guns are not needed. Handguns? A tougher call. But a small woman who needs to defend herself needn’t have to wrestle about with a rifle with a kick that knocks her over if she is threatened. (Sometimes a stern look and a command voice doesn’t deter a criminal from doing their violence).

The Church does define appropriate, and inappropriate, self defense. However, the verse seems to be taken out of context to promote gun rights. I have provided excerpts from Catholic commentaries, and St. Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea, in this thread. Post #354, #353, and #373.

 

[ishii]

Abortions always comes up. If this thread was talking about supporting the democratic party or voting for a person based on the lone issue of gun control, then abortion would be a valid argument, at least until (if ever) democrats back off abortion as a tenet of their faith. Otherwise, abortion is not the topic.

It is totally appropriate to bring up abortion - especially in response to someone who argues for gun control from a pro- life argument but is not pro life where it counts. You may be a regular poster, but that does not make you the arbiter if what is fair game on a given thread.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I understand pro life, and it’s not ‘theoretic.’ I also believe it extends to many other issues, where the Church calls for a ‘dignity of life.’ The issue becomes politicized often, when other issues are discussed and the bishops are questioned for not staying with the ‘single’ issue. Christ called us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the stranger, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned, among other things; primarily to love one another, including our enemies, as He loves us. There was no single issue, forsaking all others. To forsake a dignity of life in one area, forsakes life in another. We are called to be a people of life on ALL issues, and not just one that seems to be sometimes used to advance positions on other issues.

But what does it mean to be “effectively” pro-life - from a political standpoint? If one thinks they’re pro-life and “building a culture of life” because they support gun control, government funding of foodstamps, school lunches for the needy kids, and all the other entitlements that liberal statists love - but at the same time they turn a blind eye to the most vulnerable among us - then they are not really pro-life. And since this thread has a great deal to do with building a culture of life then its appropriate to point out where people are not consistent in helping build this culture - or where people have a wrong idea about what exactly a “culture of life” really means.

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But what does it mean to be “effectively” pro-life - from a political standpoint? If one thinks they’re pro-life and “building a culture of life” because they support gun control, government funding of foodstamps, school lunches for the needy kids, and all the other entitlements that liberal statists love - but at the same time they turn a blind eye to the most vulnerable among us - then they are not really pro-life. And since this thread has a great deal to do with building a culture of life then its appropriate to point out where people are not consistent in helping build this culture - or where people have a wrong idea about what exactly a “culture of life” really means.

Ishii

No one is turning a blind eye, and your insinuations are offensive. Simply because I don’t agree on other issues does not put me into a position of supporting an intrinsic evil. The culture of life is applicable to every single person, born and unborn. It speaks of the points being made in this debate for the insinuations to have to come up. Listen to the bishops. They’ve been touching on a ‘culture of life’ and it’s application on this issue.

 

[CaptFun]

The Church does define appropriate, and inappropriate, self defense. However, the verse seems to be taken out of context to promote gun rights. I have provided excerpts from Catholic commentaries, and St. Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea, in this thread. Post #354, #353, and #373.

Sentence 1 - agreed

Sentence 2 - 1/2 agreed. It’s not about “gun rights” or promoting same. It’s NOT taken out of context per the larger issue of self-defense (at least). Jesus did bring the whole subject UP and technically did not specify (though I would deduce he meant) self-defense in what the sword could be used for.

Sentence 3 - thanks for your documentation work. I may check these out later. The question remains (and possibly will not be answered here except in speculation). I speculated the sword was for self-defense (only?). You (if you wanna)?

What’s more … why didn’t Jesus give this advice in reverse (pro-sword control) - sell your sword and buy a cloak?

Me? I’m flat out of cloaks, and if I get a weapon to defend myself (ever) … a gun (and probably a handgun at that possibly) would be preferable to a sword. Today my “weapons” would be random household items to fling. :doh2:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sentence 1 - agreed

Sentence 2 - 1/2 agreed. It’s not about “gun rights” or promoting same. It’s NOT taken out of context per the larger issue of self-defense (at least). Jesus did bring the whole subject UP and technically did not specify (though I would deduce he meant) self-defense in what the sword could be used for.

Sentence 3 - thanks for your documentation work. I may check these out later. The question remains (and possibly will not be answered here except in speculation). I speculated the sword was for self-defense (only?). You (if you wanna)?

What’s more … why didn’t Jesus give this advice in reverse (pro-sword control) - sell your sword and buy a cloak?

Me? I’m flat out of cloaks, and if I get a weapon to defend myself (ever) … a gun (and probably a handgun at that possibly) would be preferable to a sword. Today my “weapons” would be random household items to fling. :doh2:

I think we’re agreed on self defense. I would clarify that self defense is not limited to weapons in a society. Gun controls could be a form of self defense.

There are several of the early Church fathers that referred to those ‘swords’ and the Paschal lamb. Some believed they were more like ‘butcher’ knives than the military counterpart. Christ was warning them the hardships that were to come. Two swords would not have been any type defense against armor, shields, spears, etc, yet all He mentioned was ‘swords.’ Then we cannot forget Christ’s teaching of ‘turn the other cheek,’ and to love one’s enemies, as opposed to assuming a self defense.

He would not leave us as orphans. He is with us, until the consummation of the world.

 

[pete_29]

So, we can pick and choose the bishop that doesn’t speak against our own personal interests? Of course not.

So, you agree with everything your Bishop says.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, you agree with everything your Bishop says.

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

No sarcasm…

 

[Fairwinds]

the bishop is correct to call for creating a culture of life. aligning himself with the gun grabbers (“assault weapon” is gun grabberspeak) is wrong. if the bishop inserts himself into the political debate over the second amendmen – ban scary looking guns, etc – he becomes just another player in the political game.

as the USCCB states,

“Responsible citizenship is a virtue,
and participation in political life is a moral obligation.”
– Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

as a responsible citizen, it is my moral obligation to resist unconstitutional encroachments on the bill of rights; especially by this government, which has an irresponsible appetite for doing so. God put me in this constitutional republic, and I take the obligations that come with it seriously.

F/

 

[ishii]

No one is turning a blind eye, and your insinuations are offensive. Simply because I don’t agree on other issues does not put me into a position of supporting an intrinsic evil. The culture of life is applicable to every single person, born and unborn. It speaks of the points being made in this debate for the insinuations to have to come up. Listen to the bishops. They’ve been touching on a ‘culture of life’ and it’s application on this issue.

My post is intended for those Catholics who insist that they are pro-life - because they support gun control and welfare - yet vote for people like Obama or other pro-abortion leaders - in effect turning a blind eye to the unborn. And there are many who fit that description. If that doesn’t describe you then you have no reason to be offended. Those very same people seem to ignore bishops who proclaim the Church teaching on the sanctity of life as applied to the unborn, yet fall over themselves saying “obey your bishop” when a bishop expresses his personal opinion on what they think is the best policy that would build a culture of life. In fact, many liberal catholics in my area ridicule and criticize those who try to be faithful to Catholic teaching/tradition etc as “docile.” Such as when we listen to our bishops when they say that our laws ought to protect the unborn - from conception to natural death. Contrast that with a bishop saying, “tighter gun laws will help build a culture of life.” Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But can you not see: 1) there is a difference between the two. 2) liberal catholics will disobey the bishops on the black and white issue, but “obey” the bishop expressing his opinion on an issue which faithful catholics can disagree on.

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the bishop is correct to call for creating a culture of life. aligning himself with the gun grabbers (“assault weapon” is gun grabberspeak) is wrong. if the bishop inserts himself into the political debate over the second amendmen – ban scary looking guns, etc – he becomes just another player in the political game.

as the USCCB states,

as a responsible citizen, it is my moral obligation to resist unconstitutional encroachments on the bill of rights; especially by this government, which has an irresponsible appetite for doing so. God put me in this constitutional republic, and I take the obligations that come with it seriously.

F/

Christ never taught a moral obligation to resist ‘Caesar.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My post is intended for those Catholics who insist that they are pro-life - because they support gun control and welfare - yet vote for people like Obama or other pro-abortion leaders - in effect turning a blind eye to the unborn. And there are many who fit that description. If that doesn’t describe you then you have no reason to be offended. Those very same people seem to ignore bishops who proclaim the Church teaching on the sanctity of life as applied to the unborn, yet fall over themselves saying “obey your bishop” when a bishop expresses his personal opinion on what they think is the best policy that would build a culture of life. In fact, many liberal catholics in my area ridicule and criticize those who try to be faithful to Catholic teaching/tradition etc as “docile.” Such as when we listen to our bishops when they say that our laws ought to protect the unborn - from conception to natural death. Contrast that with a bishop saying, “tighter gun laws will help build a culture of life.” Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But can you not see: 1) there is a difference between the two. 2) liberal catholics will disobey the bishops on the black and white issue, but “obey” the bishop expressing his opinion on an issue which faithful catholics can disagree on.

Ishii

I:found offense in that, because you have brought up the same theme with me on more than one thread. I have responded each time.

Where is the bishop that speaks on gun rights as you have described them? They are Catholic, with the ‘right’ to disagree, as you say.