Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which is why context is needed:
Pope John Paul’s teaching is important, but doesn’t offer direct context to the scripture we’re discussing. Below is St. Chrysostom’s theological view of that passage. I have posted other great Catholic theologians view of the passage in this thread, as well.
Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii.
 
Which is why context is needed:
And we’re back to square one.
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.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
 
As far as the story that started this thread is concerned I’d like to ask Cardinal Dolan if he has ever viewed the gun control issue in light of abortion. Clearly the most defenseless in our society are regularly lawfully murdered. It is this same government that now wants to restrict gun rights. There is no doubt in my mind that each and every person has the right to defend themselves especially in light of such palpable evil.
 
As far as the story that started this thread is concerned I’d like to ask Cardinal Dolan if he has ever viewed the gun control issue in light of abortion. Clearly the most defenseless in our society are regularly lawfully murdered. It is this same government that now wants to restrict gun rights. There is no doubt in my mind that each and every person has the right to defend themselves especially in light of such palpable evil.
The Cardinal is not remiss in conveying his thoughts to the administration on life for the unborn. These are two separate issues. In fact, the Cardinal speaks on many issues to politicians in an effort to protect the dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.
 
The Cardinal is not remiss in conveying his thoughts to the administration on life for the unborn. These are two separate issues. In fact, the Cardinal speaks on many issues to politicians in an effort to protect the dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.
No you are wrong. These are not two separate issues at all. My point is that those people that cannot defend themselves in our society are permitted to be murdered. Why therefore would anyone want to begin to go down a path where the ability to defend oneself is diminished? That would be my question for Cardinal Dolan.
 
No you are wrong. These are not two separate issues at all. My point is that those people that cannot defend themselves in our society are permitted to be murdered. Why therefore would anyone want to begin to go down a path where the ability to defend oneself is diminished? That would be my question for Cardinal Dolan.
They are two separate issues, both deserving attention.
 
As far as the story that started this thread is concerned I’d like to ask Cardinal Dolan if he has ever viewed the gun control issue in light of abortion. Clearly the most defenseless in our society are regularly lawfully murdered. It is this same government that now wants to restrict gun rights. There is no doubt in my mind that each and every person has the right to defend themselves especially in light of such palpable evil.
I’m sure he has. Abortion, the Church initiated the Pro-Life cause. We are playing catch-up with both issue’s. When we say America and gun laws, this is based on another understanding, which differs from Catholic teaching stemming from Kingdom and Pope… Thus Church and State. Thus we are a Christian country trying to reconcile our Christian understanding in this sense, and in a continuously growing secular world with no regard in some instances for the morality of Christianity.

Teaching resist no evil is right and Rome is the proof, Admittedly we have traveled far away. Resist no evil also isn’t understood as not confronting evil. Its right to confront evil which is why the peaceful demonstration for Pro-Life has been on-going and growing.
 
I went shooting again today. I went to a new range, and wanted to rent one of their guns to try out. They are not renting any 9mm guns right now because they don’t have enough ammo to sell for gun rentals. Crazy.

So I shot my own guns. Good times.
 
Pope John Paul’s teaching is important, but doesn’t offer direct context to the scripture we’re discussing. Below is St. Chrysostom’s theological view of that passage. I have posted other great Catholic theologians view of the passage in this thread, as well.

Quote:
Ver. 38.—And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. They did not understand the mind and words of Christ clearly. He did not mean that they should buy swords, but He wished to show them the impending danger. Christ did not explain His meaning to the Apostles, but concealed it, saying, “It is enough,” meaning that Peter and the other Apostles might carry these swords, and even cut off Malchus’ ear, which He Himself afterwards restored and healed, showing that He was not compelled by force, but was urged by love, willingly and freely to suffer and die. Some think that they were not military swords, but rather large butchers’ knives, which the apostles used for the slaughtering, sacrificing, and disjointing of the Paschal Lamb. So S. Chrysostom, from whom I have said more on Matt. xxvii.
All that really says is this:
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
― G.K. Chesterton
 
Prodigal Son1:
Quote:

Originally Posted by flaco40

Does anyone out there believe that the Apostles would have passed a background check

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Yes, I do. It’s compelling for me to see those of apostolic succession supporting such a measure.
Maybe you misunderstood my question . I was asking if anyone believed that the authorities either Roman or Jewish , would allow Jesus and or his Apostles to carry weapons? I think that tohe crux (no pun intended ) of the question of gun control is wethet you believe in God and yourself or in govt .

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
If one chooses to give up the means to self-defense is one thing.

To use the power of the state to strip the means of self-defense from others is immoral and, IMHO, counter to the culture of life.

Similar to charity. Giving up ones own property voluntarily is admirable and charitable. Confiscating someone else’s property and giving it away is immoral as it is theft.
 
Prodigal Son1:
Quote:

Originally Posted by flaco40

Does anyone out there believe that the Apostles would have passed a background check

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Yes, I do. It’s compelling for me to see those of apostolic succession supporting such a measure.
I think you misunderstood my question . I was asking if anyone thought the authorities either Jewish or Roman would allow the Apostles to carry weapons ?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
I think you misunderstood my question . I was asking if anyone thought the authorities either Jewish or Roman would allow the Apostles to carry weapons ?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Seems there is an agreement that the Apostles carried some form of ‘weapon,’ with the knowledge of the Jews, and Romans.
 
In fact, the Cardinal speaks on many issues to politicians …
Yes he does, which is a rather unfortunate observation.
…in an effort to protect the dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.
I suppose if he knew how best to achieve that dignity and the objectives common to all of us his involvement would be warranted, but the solutions to most political issues require an expertise in disciplines foreign to the clergy, so their involvement is rarely beneficial. In the case of gun control it seems the only effect of Cardinal Dolan’s comments is to open those who disagree with his infatuation with the president’s actions to claims that they are less than fully Catholic. All in all, not his finest hour.

Ender
 
The Cardinal is not wrong, some just didn’t like what they heard. Not at all uncommon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top