Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[vern_humphrey]

Luke 22:35 - When I sent you - lacked ye any thing - Were ye not borne above all want and danger?(as in Christ?) Luke 22:36 - But now - You will be quite in another situation. You will want every thing. He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one - It is plain, this is not to be taken literally. It only means, This will be a time of extreme danger

Help me out here – I don’t find that underlined phrase in my bible.

And clearly the Apostles did take Him literally – they showed Him two swords, and Peter had a sword in the garden.

And Luke took it literally – and he was told after Pentecost, when all was made plain to the Apostles.
.

 

[Bennie_P]

Help me out here – I don’t find that underlined phrase in my bible.
.

That is because I’m quoting a commenatary of the verse.

And clearly the Apostles did take Him literally – they showed Him two swords, and Peter had a sword in the garden…

And when you read about the incident in Matthew Jesus tells Peter to put it away.

And Luke took it literally – and he was told after Pentecost, when all was made plain to the Apostles.

If Christians where told to take up the sword then why do we have martyrs throughout the History of the Church that died for the for the Gospel and not kill for the gospel? did they not see it plainly? Why did they not defend themselves?
You cannot take one or two sciptures and build a doctrine that opposes all or any form of gun control, it is not there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is because I’m quoting a commenatary of the verse.

And whoever wrote teh commenatary is smarter than Luke, spoke the language better than the Apostles to whom the remarks were addressed, and was more thorough than Jesus, who saw no reason to explain?

And when you read about the incident in Matthew Jesus tells Peter to put it away.

And quite rightly – for two reasons. First, He had His sacrifice to make, and second it would put them in rebellion against Rome.

But Peter did have the sword. And Jesus did know he had it.

If Christians where told to take up the sword then why do we have martyrs throughout the History of the Church that died for the for the Gospel and not kill for the gospel? did they not see it plainly? Why did they not defend themselves?
You cannot take one or two sciptures and build a doctrine that opposes all or any form of gun control, it is not there.

Nor can you claim to know better than the Apostles what Jesus meant.

Clearly, self-defense is a right recognized by the Catholic Church – as well as a duty in some cases. Clearly, to be armed in dangerous times was part of Jesus’ teaching.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Nor does the CCC take away the rights of governments to regulate gun ownership.

The CCC does state that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves from death and serious injury. A “grave” duty is to be performed by the BEST means possible. Otherwise, it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. And the BEST means of protecting oneself in MOST cases (not ALL but MOST) is with a firearm.

As to Luke 22:35 - 36 you are not even close to the context of the scritpture in your usage, which is concening Jesus and the apostles going to the garden to pray before his passion. This part of the discourse is Jesus warning of the coming danger, if you remember, (you have read the whole story?), when it appeared to be the time to use the sword Jesus told Peter to put it away - you know “live by the sword die by the sword.”

The reason why Jesus stopped Peter from using the sword is because Jesus knew that He HAD TO die for our sins in order to open up the gates of heaven.

If Jesus had not intended for the sword to be used, why would He have commanded His followers to purchase one? Recall, that Jesus was a stronger supporter of the poor – always encouraging people to provide for those in need. Yet, Jesus does not tell the Aposltes to sell their coat and give the money to the poor but to use that money to purchase a sword if they are lacking one.

A sword has only one purpose – to be used as a weapon. It would have been hypocritical of Jesus to command them to buy a sword if He did not intend for it to be used as a weapon. Otherwise he money could have been better spent by providing for the poor.

Luke22:35 When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything?
Luke 22:36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.
From Wesley -
.
But if you want to sell your coat and buy sword do so. But there is nothing in scripture about selling your coat and buying a Colt 45, nor a Barretta,nor a Smith and Wesson, nor an AK 47, nor an AR-15. Your justification as you state it isn’t there.

Now you are intentional being silly. Are we not to use anything that is not found in the bible? That would exclude computers, the internet, radio, TV, cars, etc. After all, all of those things COULD be used for evil purposes. Even an ambulance which is used to bring people to emergency medical treatment could take a life if used incorrectly.

There is nothing in scripture about buying a Colt 45 because it did not exist. The fact of the matter is that Jesus command His followers to arm themselves with the BEST means of personal defense available to them at the time. He did not instruct them to arm themselves with something that was second best.

The same command applies to us today. We have a duty to protect ourselves with the BEST means POSSIBLE. As I said above, the BEST means of protecting oneself in MOST cases (not ALL but MOST) is with a firearm.

 

[melensdad]

If Christians where told to take up the sword then why do we have martyrs throughout the History of the Church that died for the for the Gospel and not kill for the gospel? did they not see it plainly? Why did they not defend themselves?
You cannot take one or two sciptures and build a doctrine that opposes all or any form of gun control, it is not there.

Have you looked up ALL the Saints before asking that?
We could start with Michael the Archangel. But there are many soldier Saints.

 

[Bennie_P]

Clearly, self-defense is a right recognized by the Catholic Church – as well as a duty in some cases. Clearly, to be armed in dangerous times was part of Jesus’ teaching.

 

[Bennie_P]

As I said above, the BEST means of protecting oneself in MOST cases (not ALL but MOST) is with a firearm.

This is **your **opinion here not Church teaching. You show me where the Church tells us the best means of protecting oneself is with a firearm?- you are stretching to come to this conclusion.

Rom 8:31 *What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us? *
Rom 8:32 He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall accuse against the elect of God? God is he that justifieth:
Rom 8:34 Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died: yea that is risen also again, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?
Rom 8:36 (As it is written: For thy sake, we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.)
Rom 8:37 But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us. :bible1:

Our best means of protection is putting our lives into the hands of Christ.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is **your **opinion here not Church teaching. You show me where the Church tells us the best means of protecting oneself is with a firearm?- you are stretching to come to this conclusion.

Wow! Talk about stretching!!

You say if the Bible doesn’t say we can have it, we can’t have it? That’s a stretch!

Rom 8:31 *What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us? *
Rom 8:32 He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall accuse against the elect of God? God is he that justifieth:
Rom 8:34 Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died: yea that is risen also again, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?
Rom 8:36 (As it is written: For thy sake, we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.)
Rom 8:37 But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us. :bible1:

Our best means of protection is putting our lives into the hands of Christ.

Wow! So the Church is wrong to tell us we have the right and duty of self defense!

We should throw the Catechism away, trash the Bible – and follow you as our prophet?

 

[Bennie_P]

Have you looked up ALL the Saints before asking that?
We could start with Michael the Archangel. But there are many soldier Saints.

And St Francis is one the “soldier” Saints, he was soldier that gave up the sword to live for Christ. So was St Ignatious of Layola, that is a soldier tha gave up the sword to follow Christ. Saint George was killed for not denying Christ, not in battle but as a martyr, unless you want to count that Dragon thing, (I wear a St George Medal). Saint Michael is in Battle with Satan for us, so I guess his sword is really symbolic as the Sword of Truth?:knight2: Your point?

 

[Bennie_P]

Wow! Talk about stretching!!

You say if the Bible doesn’t say we can have it, we can’t have it? That’s a stretch!

I Never said that.

Wow! So the Church is wrong to tell us we have the right and duty of self defense!

I Never said that

We should throw the Catechism away, trash the Bible – and follow you as our prophet?

**and once again I Never said that, but I believe your **exegesis is lacking.

I haven’t denied the Church obligates us to protect ourselves and our families **the stretch is you saying the best way to do so is to oppose all forms of gun control. **

I said it once and I say it again the best way to protect yourself is to put your trust in Chirst - deny that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I Never said that.

I can hear me sainted Irish Mither saying, “Your tongue is going to turn black and fall out of your mouth.”

I Never said that

I can hear me sainted Irish Mither saying, “Your tongue is going to turn black and fall out of your mouth.”

**and once again I Never said that, but I believe your ****exegesis **is lacking.

And your unbilicus is inadequate.

I haven’t denied the Church obligates us to protect ourselves and our families **the stretch is you saying the best way to do so is to oppose all forms of gun control. **

That’s what the Constitution says.

I said it once and I say it again the best way to protect yourself is to put your trust in Chirst - deny that.

And Christ said sell your coat and buy a sword.

 

[Deus_Vult]

The Leftist/Socialist view on Gun Control has been around for some time…

“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz) March 18, 1938

 

[Bennie_P]

That’s what the Constitution says…

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So in order to have a well regulated Militia should all gun owners be properly train in the use, including safe use and storage, of the weapons they own? and should then all gun owners be required to be part of that militia? and if being part of that militia, thus under the control of the Government and its military authority? So is the right of gun ownership tied into the security of the state or not?

It was easy to write those words when the writers of the constitution lived in a world were a family was lucky to be able to afford one gun for the family to use for hunting and defense of thier families, when over 90 percent of the citizens lived on small farms and/or on the frontier. when we didn’t have automatic and semi-automatic weapons that have capacity to shoot more rounds in a minute then the average citizen of the day might have shot in a whole year.

I’m not against gun ownership, but if you stick to the way you think, that is no type of gun control is the only acceptable option, the day will come there will be no guns to control.

And Christ said sell your coat and buy a sword.

Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Mat 26:52

**And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. **

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: for he that shall lose his life for my sake shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world and lose himself and cast away himself? Luke 9:23 - 25
**

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/69/G18_mag.jpg/300px-G18_mag.jpg**
**Or **
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a5/Crucifix.JPG/150px-Crucifix.JPG

 

[melensdad]

I don’t understand the 2 photos with the word “OR” between them. What is the point?

Are you saying that people cannot enjoy firearms AND be faithful to Christ?


By the way, the passage you quote (Luke 9:23-25) is NOT really relevant to someone who is protecting his life from a mugger. It clearly is written to say that a religious martyr, who loses his life in defense of the faith, shall be with Christ. It does, however, not address anything to do with saving your life from a robber/murderer. Consequently your passage was irrelevant to the topic of self defense.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So in order to have a well regulated Militia should all gun owners be properly train in the use, including safe use and storage, of the weapons they own?

What’s storage got to do with it?

and should then all gun owners be required to be part of that militia? and if being part of that militia,

We already are – whether we own guns or not.

Thus under the control of the Government and its military authority?

When called into active service, yes.

So is the right of gun ownership tied into the security of the state or not?

Read the Federalist Papers – it’s tied to three things:

1. National security, providing a militia that can be called up for the defense of the nation.
2. State security, providing a militia that can protect the states.
3. Protection of liberty, providing a counterpoise to the forces of the government.

It was easy to write those words when the writers of the constitution lived in a world were a family was lucky to be able to afford one gun for the family to use for hunting and defense of thier families, when over 90 percent of the citizens lived on small farms and/or on the frontier. when we didn’t have automatic and semi-automatic weapons that have capacity to shoot more rounds in a minute then the average citizen of the day might have shot in a whole year.

It was easy to write those words about freedom of the press when the writers of the constitution lived in a world were a family was lucky to be able to afford one newspaper for the family to use for for information, when over 90 percent of the citizens lived on small farms and/or on the frontier. when we didn’t have automatic and semi-automatic presses that have capacity to print more papers in a minute then the average citizen of the day might have read in a whole year.

It was easy to write those words about freedom of the speect when the writers of the constitution lived in a world were a family was didn’t have a radio for the family to use for for information, when over 90 percent of the citizens lived on small farms and/or on the frontier. when we didn’t have television and the internet that have capacity to provide more information in a minute then the average citizen of the day might have had access to in a whole year.

I’m not against gun ownership, but if you stick to the way you think, that is no type of gun control is the only acceptable option, the day will come there will be no guns to control.

So when are you coming to confiscate my guns?

Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Mat 26:52

But Jesus did not saith to him: Git rid of that nasty 'ol sword!

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t understand the 2 photos with the word “OR” between them. What is the point?

Are you saying that people cannot enjoy firearms AND be faithful to Christ?

I think he’s saying he’s holier than the rest of us – 'cause we have those nasty 'ol guns.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t understand the 2 photos with the word “OR” between them. What is the point?

Are you saying that people cannot enjoy firearms AND be faithful to Christ?


By the way, the passage you quote (Luke 9:23-25) is NOT really relevant to someone who is protecting his life from a mugger. It clearly is written to say that a religious martyr, who loses his life in defense of the faith, shall be with Christ. It does, however, not address anything to do with saving your life from a robber/murderer. Consequently your passage was irrelevant to the topic of self defense.

‘enjoy’ firearms?

 

[whatevergirl]

But Jesus did not saith to him: Git rid of that nasty 'ol sword!

Because He wants us to use our free will…I think though that His statements on the sword were pretty obvious, though.

No…I’m not getting back into this discussion–just wanted to say that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because He wants us to use our free will…I think though that His statements on the sword were pretty obvious, though.

No…I’m not getting back into this discussion–just wanted to say that.

Amazing how many people nowadays know the Apostles got it wrong.

 

[whatevergirl]

Amazing how many people nowadays know the Apostles got it wrong.

amazing how many people try to tell me what I mean.