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.
Cor_Cordis said:
It was Americans serving who were by and large familiar with private arms.

Perhaps you’ve heard of Sgt York?

Audie Murphy?
Click to expand...
We are not in disagreement here, but appear to be stating the same differently. 🤷:confused:

Sgt. York is probably my favorite movie of all time. I am familiar. Their private arms were a necessity of life. Sgt. York was actually a conscientious objector, for theological reasons. The arms they carried into battle had nothing to do with this discussion though.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
We are not in disagreement here, but appear to be stating the same differently. 🤷:confused:

Sgt. York is probably my favorite movie of all time. I am familiar. Their private arms were a necessity of life. Sgt. York was actually a conscientious objector, for theological reasons. The arms they carried into battle had nothing to do with this discussion though.
Click to expand...
Agreed with 90% of your statement.

However, their familiarity with weaponry and independent spirit for life and liberty fostered by a uniquely American society contributed greatly to their motivations. On a squad level and on a personal level.

This is also applicable in all just defense. Both military and civilian.

“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
 
styrgwillidar said:
I wonder if the Cardinal has read this opinion piece in Pravda on gun control in Russia/Soviet Union.

english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

ETA: here’s an interesting bit

“Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers”
Click to expand...
Very good research, and I might add its well known civil man and barbarism have always existed side by side. We like to think we are all civil out here, and our leaders “always” promise this. The promise of peace and social political history has been ever so elusive. This is exactly why we all don’t jump when Obama and his cheerleader Biden say so.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Very good research, and I might add its well know civil man and barbarism have always existed side by side. We like to think we are all civil out here, and our leaders “always” promise this. The promise of peace and social political history has been ever so elusive. This is exactly why we all don’t jump when Obama and his cheerleader Biden say so.
Click to expand...
The worst totalitarian regimes in all of history came about in the 20th century. They were all “socialist” in their political philosophies, and each and every one of them came into dominant power in a society of State controlled unarmed citizens. And they were responsible for more human misery and death than all the previous wars of history combined.
“Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God”
Click to expand...
"But the truth is that it is only by believing in God that we can ever criticize the Government. Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God. The fact is written all across human history; but it is written more plainly across that recent history of Russia; which was created by Lenin. There the Government is the God, and all the more the God, because it proclaims aloud in accents of thunder, like every other God worth worshiping, the one essential commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”
Click to expand...
…The truth is that Ir-religion is the opium of the people. Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world. But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world. And, by the very nature of the Bolshevist and many other modern systems, as well as by the practical working of almost any system, the State will be strongest thing in the world. The whole tendency of men is to treat the solitary State as the solitary standard. That men may protest against law, it is necessary that they should believe in justice; that they may believe in justice beyond law, it is necessary that they should believe in a justice beyond the land of living men. You can impose the rule of the Bolshevist as you can impose the rule of the Bourbons; but it is equally an imposition. You can even make its subjects contented, as opium would make them contented. But if you are to have anything like divine discontent, then it must really be divine. Anything that really comes from below must really come from above."
Click to expand...
  • G.K.Chesterton - Christendom in Dublin (1932)
Click to expand...
 
“Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world. But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world.”
Chesterton is a light

The sentence… affirmed, alive and well today. Look around. This isn’t to say we don’t have a responsibility to gun control especially as Catholics. I concede the involvement with Catholics and Christian’s in war history in the US…also “affirmed”. Its a complex problem. As is the world today.
 
Cor Cordis,

“Government becomes the God”. I think this explains a lot of the problems in our society currently. The government taking over roles (even with the approval of the Church) that are more religious than secular in nature. As much as we like to say there is separation between Church and State in the US, that disappears if you consider secular humanism as a religion.
Code: 
We have a government trying to provide what used to be considered charity, support to the poor or those in unfortunate circumstances. Charity was the choice of an individual, encouraged by the morality of society, and an expected action of a Christian. The person recieving charity understood it was a sacrifice/gift of another from the labors of another and normally had a sense of gratitude since they didn't view it as an entitlement. And, since they viewed it as being a burden on others felt an obligation to try and limit their dependence on it and improve their condition. 

Now we have government providing it and it disassociates the giver from the action, that is the giver tends to see it no longer as their individual responsibility, but a duty of the government.  The receiver no longer sees it as a sacrifice/gift from others labor, but a duty of the government. And since it is a government function and entitlement the receiver even loses a sense of gratitude.
Which is why I think it becomes dangerous for the bishops to charge governments with carrying out all moral functions, effectively making them a government imposition vice an individual choice. While it is well for the bishops to encourage each of us individually to consider our actions and choices, I don’t believe it is the government’s role to impose a moral code. The moral code a government may want to impose could be considerably at odds with and corrosive to our Catholic values. (abortion coverage mandate, acceptance and even encouragement of homosexuality, infringement on parental responsibility, etc. etc.)
 
styrgwillidar said:
Cor Cordis,

“Government becomes the God”. I think this explains a lot of the problems in our society currently. The government taking over roles (even with the approval of the Church) that are more religious than secular in nature. As much as we like to say there is separation between Church and State in the US, that disappears if you consider secular humanism as a religion.
Click to expand...
The misnomer of so called “Separation of Church and State” is fundamentally flawed and insidious by design.

America is a Constitutional Representative Republic. And by the definition of our Founding Creed ALL rights are by extension Divine Rights. That definition in and of itself excludes the formal recognition of any atheistic representation as a matter of legislative policy.
“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”
Click to expand...
“There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions.” - G.K.Chesterton
Click to expand...
 
scipio337 said:
At least on one occasion. And then Peter was told to put his sword away, not get rid of it.

Also, they were known to be “anti-government” for their time.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t told to ‘get rid of it,’ however, he was told that those that take the sword would perish by the sword.

Render unto Caesar, and obeying those over you, is not exactly ‘anti-government’, but more like recognize that which is eternally important.
 
scipio337 said:
At least on one occasion. And then Peter was told to put his sword away, not get rid of it.
Click to expand...
And then immediately warned by the Lord Himself that those who live by the sword…

:doh2:
scipio337 said:
Also, they were known to be “anti-government” for their time.
Click to expand...
I was known as anti-Government when Bush was POTUS and Blair was PM.

Apparently that meant I was “with the terrorists” and “anti-patriot”.

Odd how things change.:rolleyes:
 
SamH said:
The best the world had to offer at the time.
Click to expand...
if you mean that they had the Holy Spirit with them, thenit was and is the best defence of then, now and ever will be.

But they were not “packing steel”.

Unless I am very much mistaken and you have more “education” for me.:eek:
 
SamH said:
The best the world had to offer at the time.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top