Crossbows and Firearms

[Hoosier-Daddy]

You think guns are morally wrong!? Wow. … bold statement

 

[Melissa]

There is something else going on besides access to guns when one county in the state of IL has 80% of the murders in the state (with about 40% of the state population), and the other 102 combined (which are equally close to states with allegedly lax laws) have only 20% of the murders in the state (and of course not all murders are committed by using a firearm).

 

[EZweber]

I think you would find that most Catholic Bishops and priests around the world would favour gun control.

Maybe his seminary is extremely abnormal, but my brother is in seminary and the last time I went shooting, I was one of the only two people there that weren’t from his seminary. I also seem to remember a number of priests at our parish going hunting with parishioners, so I wonder how true your statement really is. There is certainly no unanimous agreement.

 

[MikeInVA]

At the Second Lateran Council a ban was issued on crossbows due to their destructive power (at the time).

Being killed by a crossbow or being killed by the sword is pretty much the same thing to the person killed. I think there may have been more cultural or historical issues going on here than we (or at least I) know of.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Here’s what the canon says, at least in a translation that is more trustworthy than one I can come up with: “We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.”

What does that actually mean and why was it instituted? I don’t really know but, if we want to parse the statement, what is being anathematized is the “murderous art of crossbowmen and archers.” Does that mean that there were legitimate uses of the bow (i.e., ones that weren’t part of this “murderous art”)? It seems so.

Dan

 

[EnglishTeacher]

I live in the midwest (US) and I, too, know a number of priests who hunt. No one thinks twice about it.

 

[MikeInVA]

“We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.”

What does that actually mean and why was it instituted?

I think the issue with the crossbow is that it was mostly used for assassination. Long bows had a greater range; crossbows tended to be more accurate but short ranged. which limited their effectiveness on the battlefield.

 

[phil19034]

Why are they morally neutral? They have more power than crossbows. Was the Second Lateran Council a doctrinal council or a pastoral council?

The ban was pastoral & a matter of discipline. I don’t know if the Council itself was more pastoral or doctrinal, but the ban was pastoral and a matter of discipline.

 

[phil19034]

Here’s what the canon says, at least in a translation that is more trustworthy than one I can come up with: “We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.”

What does that actually mean and why was it instituted? I don’t really know but, if we want to parse the statement, what is being anathematized is the “murderous art of crossbowmen and archers.” Does that mean that there were legitimate uses of the bow (i.e., ones that weren’t part of this “murderous art”)? It seems so.

Dan

Sounds to me like sniper shooting / assassinations.

I’m pretty sure the Church generally still considers assassinations to be murder, even if an evil person.

I know they was an exception made for Hitler, but generally, I think assassinations & snipper shooting would objectively be considered murder unless the act was actively saving lives.

Thoughts?

 

[EZweber]

I’m pretty sure the Church generally still considers assassinations to be murder, even if an evil person.

I know they was an exception made for Hitler

Tyrannicide is the technical term to use for cases like this. Tyrannicide is morally permissable, but it has to follow specific guidelines. To put it simply the guidelines are basically just war guidelines applied to an individual. Just for clarification.

 

[puppson]

Snipers are valuable assets in warfare. They’d be just fine in a war based on just cause.

 

[phil19034]

Snipers are valuable assets in warfare. Be They’d be just fine in a war based on just cause.

Based on @ezweber’s post re Tyrannicide, I totally agree.

Which is why I gave his post a like

 

[puppson]

Yes. I could see where the actions of snipers could actually shorten conflicts by eliminating commanding officers, or save innocent lives. Witness the British sniper who took out ISIS butchers from an insane distance, before they could summarily execute civilians.