How do you understand Aquinas when he says “except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers,”Do Australian police shoot deliberately shoot people that are wounded and unconscious?
That would be intending to kill them, would it not?
Or is their intent when the fire something different?
Do you think that when the Swiss Guard strap on their handguns, that they go to work INTENDING on killing someone?
Does the very fact that a person, even a police officer, carries a gun, implies an INTENT to kill.
Or would the intent be to stop the crime? If the police officer uses the firearm to hold the person while they are handcuffed, did the police fail in their intent of drawing the firearm? Do you think that the police officer is disappointed that their intent to kill someone failed?
It means Capital Punishment. That is when a public official has the INTENT to kill in self defense of others. In that the goal of the action is the actual death, not merely injuring or causing to flee.How do you understand Aquinas when he says "except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers,"
What does that mean to you and how does it differ from the requirement of private individuals not to intend to kill in self defense?
Hang on are you claiming that the two examples given ie. “soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers” are defined as capital punishment? So a policeman ‘struggling with robbers’ is actually judge and jury during that struggle?It means Capital Punishment. That is when a public official has the INTENT to kill in self defense of others. In that the goal of the action is the actual death, not merely injuring or causing to flee.
Private persons do not have the right of Capital Punishment.
Private persons may have the intent to stop the attack, and loss of life might result from that.
But if the attack is stopped, the right to use violence ceases. That could be if the attacker submits, flees or suffers sufficient bodily harm to redender him\her harmless. If such is the case, medical help should be offered.
But in each of those cases, the goal of the self defense if fulfilled. The attack was stopped and the defender is safe.
Thus the intent is to stop the attack.
Now how do you define having the INTENT to kill?
No, because the intent of the solider and the police officer is not to kill. In the case of the solider, it is to render the enemy combat ineffective. So you really think that soliders are supposed to shoot prisioners. Because if their intent is to kill the enemy, then having the enemy surrender is not fulfilling their goal.Hang on are you claiming that the two examples given ie. “soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers” are defined as capital punishment? So a policeman ‘struggling with robbers’ is actually judge and jury during that struggle?
You miss the point.I did some googling regarding the cases you quote. It seems to be that the ruling was for the benefit of protecting the state from the abnormally litigious attitude that exists in the US… not to promote private gun ownership.
…
A better question for the Australian policeman would be why is he armed at all?Longing,
I will give you this challenge.
Call up your local police station. Ask to speak to an armed officer.
As them if it is their intent is to kill when they draw their firearm towards a criminal.
Post their response please.
Let us know how Australian police view their role as bearers of arms on behalf of the State.
Jamaica has big problems with drugs and guns, when the friend of a minister was shot and killed, the minister asked what is the church doing about gun crime? The answer seemed to be nothing, he asked, what could the church do about gun crime?In response to the primary question about bringing guns to church, I would say yes; guns should be allowed anywhere as the whole point of allowing citizens to arm themselves is to provide them the means to protect themselves and their families against the aggressor.
.
Good for your priest friend - a Shepard’s crozier has a hook on one side to gather his sheep and a rod on the other side to protect his sheep.I carry in Mass. And at least one priest friend of mine does as well.
That is wonderful as an approach when one is working with common street criminals in gangs.Jamaica has big problems with drugs and guns, when the friend of a minister was shot and killed, the minister asked what is the church doing about gun crime? The answer seemed to be nothing, he asked, what could the church do about gun crime?
After praying, he felt the church should go out in the streets where the gangs hang out and confront them. He was able to encourage some of his parishioners to go out with him, they were armed with prayer, and they started to make changes to people’s lives.
The aim was to target those at risk of gang membership, drugs, guns and violence. In effect, street pastoring is a visible and more confrontational form of social work with a Christian flavour.
Its emphasis is on preventing crime by building bridges between the offender and the community from which they have become detached. This may be as simple as talking to a drug dealer or as complex as sticking with someone as they try to sort their life out.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2834993.stm
Not to make too fine a point of it, but the Church has found that while Aquinas was one of the greatest theologians the Church has had, he was not correct in all his statements. You might want to refer to the CCC, which allows self defense.Private self defense has natural limitations that don’t apply to public servants who act on behalf of the common good. Aquinas makes that clear and it is the basis for the laws of western civilisation.
"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), **it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, **although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.’ -Summa Theologica “Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self defense”.
What we are addressing as far as regulation, is the ownership of guns by civilians for private self defense. That’s the problem issue. Not the role of police or military who are subject to strict guidelines in use of their weapon and trained in all the important aspects of armed defense from assessing situations to responding with calm under pressure. So there is no grounds to equate civilian gun users with commissioned public servants acting for the public good.
New York has done it’s best to see that there were no civilians able to come to her aid.I did some googling regarding the cases you quote. It seems to be that the ruling was for the benefit of protecting the state from the abnormally litigious attitude that exists in the US… not to promote private gun ownership. It seems to me that the conundrum is created by the 2nd Amendment promotion of private gun ownership in the interests of the welfare of the state… but without enforcing the entity ‘a well regulated militia’… who would be a safety net for protection in a gun rich violent society. This is where this blackspot is causing so many problems and making US society look like hypocrits.
When the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment promotes a lucrative gun market both legal and illegal… there needs to be a well thought out strategy for combating the inevitable fact of gun violence. If civilians genuinely identified as permanent ‘militia’ as defined by the constitution, it follows that more responsibility would be taken for the vulnerable than is actually the case. In the Linda Riss case I think she would have a much more accurate target for litigation in the gun owners of her city who fundamentally fail to fulfill their duties as a well regulated militia.
This is irrelevant because no other western country permits you to own a gun to kill an aggressor as part of peace time society and yet we all still abide the words to their fullest. You are interpreting ‘legitimate defense’ to mean ‘a gun’ when many other countries have categorically shown that ‘legitimate defense’ can be achieved without a huge death rate.This quote is from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” of 25 March 1995: "55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. 43 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 defence, 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-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
Moreover, “legitimate defence 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”.44 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 action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45
43 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2263-2269; cf. also Catechism of the Council of Trent III, §§ 327-332.
44 Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2265.
45 Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 64, a. 7; Saint Alphonsus De’ Liguori, Theologia Moralis, l. III, tr. 4, c. 1, dub.3."
This concern the individual and their right and duty to protect themselves and their loved ones. No where do it state that we should give up that right and duty to the state.
No, it is irrelevant because you don’t like what it says.This is irrelevant because no other western country permits you to own a gun to kill an aggressor as part of peace time society and yet we all still abide the words to their fullest.
Hogwash. There is nothing whatsoever in John Paul’s statement that reflects anything of your imagination. Nor is there anything in the gun control laws of other nations which is predicated on any such “legitimate defense.” It is simply a matter that liberal ideology has overcome common sense. An aggressor who comes at you with a knife leaves you with absolutely no defense, unless you are extremely skilled in hand to hand combat, and even then you have no defense unless you are faster than your aggressor.You are interpreting ‘legitimate defense’ to mean ‘a gun’ when many other countries have categorically shown that ‘legitimate defense’ can be achieved without a huge death rate.