Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[Bennie_P]

This is off subject but if you haven’t visit this site you need to, I encourgage you to be supporter.

daisymuseum.com/swf/default.htm

http://www.daisymuseum.com/shopping/images/products/287.gif

 

[Man]

…
But I do not support across the board registration of firearms (notice I did not say handguns, because again, many “gun control” advocates want all firearms registered) for one main reason. I do not trust present and future governments to not use such registration to confiscate my legally obtained firearms.

Many “gun control” advocates seem to forget why our forefathers wrote the second amendment.

Let us not forget that the “free State” was established by bearing arms against an established, legal government. And one of the first actions by that government was an attempt to confiscate powder and arms.

I live in down state Illinois. The Governor, in his Chicagoan wisdom wanted to expensive yearly renewals required for firearms. It was defeated of course; Apparently no one was interested in hitting five deer with their car on the way around downstate where the capitol is located.

I don’t think I could support such registration laws regarding hunting rifles and so forth. While the danger of war seems to be gone, you never know in this time, and then, there are those deer and raccoons…

 

[RobDH]

Your opinion on Church teaching is not binding and has some flaws in it concerning gun control.IMO

Once again you inject your own agenda and attempt to twist my words. In the instance you are referring to, I was stating what Church teaching was concerning self-defense. And it is you who have flaws concerning your knowledge of that teaching.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

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.

It is quite clear what the Church teaches concerning the issue of self-defense and the use of arms in doing so at the personal as well as national level.

And once again, I can do without your sarcastic little smiley faces. I have done my best to conduct a serious and civil discussion. Yet you insist on injecting sarcasm and ridicule when I and others disagree with your opinion.

but it also protects others for example, if you happen to be mad at your boss, your girl friend, your wife’s boyfriend, your auto mechanic…etc…

And again you try to obscure the issue under discussion while ignoring what was actually written and injecting sarcastic insult.

It should be fairly obvious, even to you, that I was speaking of legitimate self-defense. As it should be obvious that the Church does not ban or even discourage the use of arms in legitimate defense, and even encourages it under the correct circumstances.

 

[RobDH]

I don’t think I could support such registration laws regarding hunting rifles and so forth. While the danger of war seems to be gone, you never know in this time, and then, there are those deer and raccoons…

I suspect any non-nuclear war will take care of itself, as I doubt anyone will be interested in “gun control” if such a national need arises.

But governmental aggression and suppression of the rights of the people, that’s another story. Look at the abuses committed in the name of security by the current administration, which the Supreme Court has ruled against, and the actions of the local and federal authorities in the aftermath of Katrina, not to mention the rising crime rates and lack of working solutions in law enforcement (do primarily to under-funding on a disastrous scale) around the country. No, I have little trust of the government in that regard.

 

[Man]

Man posted:

Now hang on a minute, when I argued in favour of guns, I meant for serious target shooters. I did not intend to put forward an arguement which supported using a firearm in anger.

If self-defence [that is intent to harm another person] is the subject then please count me out.

I do not nor would not ever put forward any arguement which supports an individual’s claims to the right to carry them if they intend to use them against anything but a paper target.

Against fellow human beings or to murder animals NO NO NO DEFINITELY NOT! BAN EM!!

I am sorry, but the Catholic Church clearly states that weapons may be used in self defense. Countries are obligated to provide defensive means to their citizens.

This is also the basis for our government. A government’s first and most important purpose is to secure peace. The first right.

And, by the way, the subject of the thread.

 

[Sixtus]

Rob DH posted:

Then you disagree with the Church in this regard, at least in the matter of self-defense, whether personal or nationally speaking

Man posted:

the Catholic Church clearly states that weapons may be used in self defense. Countries are obligated to provide defensive means to their citizens.

This is also the basis for our government. A government’s first and most important purpose is to secure peace.

I am astonished at the hair- splitting to justify the use of firearms.

Of course most people would accept the State’s duty and responsibility to provide a competent Force of Arms for defence. Particularly relevant in today’s internationally politically unstable climates. There are also texts in Scripture to support that, so it is no surprise the Catholic Church supports it.

But that is a completely different ball-game to citizens arming themselves and possessing the intent or willingness to grieviously harm another fellow human being.

Soldiers are trained to fire only by the rules of engagement. Even then, lots of professional soldiers have problems opening fire at live targets. I suggest that is because it is not inherent in the nature of man to kill! We call that a weakness and crime, the crime: murder!

As for eating meat, it is one thing eating meat already dead and going out and deliberately taking of a life. You may call it hypocricy but if the difference is not obvious then I suggest there is an element of mental illness which is clouding the vision.

I am not vegetarian but if I had to go and kill, then I would most certainly be so.

I am however interested in the psychology of non-combatants possessing the propensity and williness to kill. What goes through their mind: ‘I am about to kill?’ ‘I have the power to kill?’ ’ I can destroy the existance of this person/animal?’ I possess the power to end their/its existence for ever?’ ’ I can perform the ultimate act of destruction in respect of this persons/animals life?’
‘I can watch it die knowing I killed it?’ ‘I can watch it suffer in extreme pain knowing I inflicted it?’ ‘I possess power!’ ‘I possess power to make someone/thing die quickely/slowly?’

I do not know, but professional interests in forensic psychology, I am interested to explore what the thoughts are that gets a person off when faced with the ability and opportunity to kill or motivates them to obtain a firearm knowing they may use it to destroy life.

 

[Man]

…
But that is a completely different ball-game to citizens arming themselves and possessing the intent or willingness to grieviously harm another fellow human being.

In certain instances it would be regarded as not a right, but a responsibility…

Do you have children?

Soldiers are trained to fire only by the rules of engagement. Even then, lots of professional soldiers have problems opening fire at live targets…

Also, responsibility…

As for eating meat, it is one thing eating meat already dead and going out and deliberately taking of a life. You may call it hypocricy but if the difference is not obvious then I suggest there is an element of mental illness which is clouding the vision.

I am not vegetarian but if I had to go and kill, then I would most certainly be so.

I am however interested in the psychology of non-combatants possessing the propensity and williness to kill. What goes through their mind: ‘I am about to kill?’ ‘I have the power to kill?’ ’ I can destroy the existance of this person/animal?’ I possess the power to end their/its existence for ever?’ ’ I can perform the ultimate act of destruction in respect of this persons/animals life?’
‘I can watch it die knowing I killed it?’ ‘I can watch it suffer in extreme pain knowing I inflicted it?’ ‘I possess power!’ ‘I possess power to make someone/thing die quickely/slowly?’

I do not know, but professional interests in forensic psychology, I am interested to explore what the thoughts are that gets a person off when faced with the ability and opportunity to kill or motivates them to obtain a firearm knowing they may use it to destroy life.

I have some skill with a firearm, though, I always preferred the bow. Should bows and crossbows be registered? Does owning a sword describe a personal desire to kill?

Do I have a responsibility to be willing to kill, in any case, for the defense of others? Especially, in prudent defense of my own children?

Why would you eat meat then? They slaughter the animal for you. The animal is killed in a regulated manner. As lethal and natural as possible. I am certain, nonetheless, that there is often suffering. There is blood and innards. But, there is protein. There is fat and energy and iron. You shouldn’t eat meat if you believe killing an animal is wrong.

I don’t know about you, but I appreciate God, to Him I am grateful, that I should have the prosperity to eat the flesh of animals.

 

[melensdad]

Bennie wrote, in regards the Catechism of the Catholic Church writings on Self-Defense being a grave duty:

Your opinion on Church teaching is not binding and has some flaws in it concerning gun control.IMO

Nothing in the CCC states you must defend your life with a gun. It just states it is your GRAVE DUTY to defend your own life, and it clearly states that if you UNINTENTIONALLY kill an aggressor, then you are not to blame for your action.

Bennie wrote, in regards to a comment about the 10 day waiting period in California

Gee I’d like to see some proof of that. Here in Indiana I can go in and buy a handgun as I outlined earlier in the thread. Sometimes the entire transaction takes an hour. Sometimes it may take a week. It all depends on the state police and them clearing the applicant through the background check process. But if your statement has even a hint of truth to it, then idiot bosses and bumbling car mechanics would be shot on a daily basis here in Indiana. We are awash with guns, but our crime rates, murder rates, domestic violence rates, assault rates, ect are all LOWER than in Illinois where you have very draconian gun laws but where your police seem to favor chasing down people who buy fireworks for their 4th of July celebrations.

Regarding my comment about gun laws being STATE issues, Bennie wrote

and you are one that thinks regulation should stay a state issue, instead of reforming the laws and making them uniformed across the nation?

As I stated earlier, if YOUR state would accept responsibility for some of ITS OWN actions and INACTIONS, and if YOUR state would work PROACTIVELY on fixing the root causes of the violence, and if YOUR state would stop trying to take away the rights of the citizens of MY state, then maybe I would be willing to work with them. But you seem to propose that everything is a ONE WAY street with the “pro-gun” side being forced to concede freedoms it has to the “anti-gun” side, when it is the “anti-gun” side that really doesn’t seem to want to work on anything other than jamming their views down the throats of people who do not have problems. Again, if Illiniois is awash with guns that come in from Mississippi, then maybe the Attorney General of Illiniois should sit down with the AG of Mississippi and try to work out some bi-state solution. But for the Illinois politicians to try to force their ideals on ALL the states when it has a problem with a FEW states, then that smacks of elitist thought and obviously is an infringement on law abiding people.

Sixtus wrote in response to Rob:

Sixtus:

Now hang on a minute, when I argued in favour of guns, I meant for serious target shooters. I did not intend to put forward an arguement which supported using a firearm in anger.

If self-defence [that is intent to harm another person] is the subject then please count me out.

Well it seems to me that this issue has been answered many times, but let me pose it a different way. Someone has a handgun in their house. It is legally owned. That person is in their home. Someone breaks into their home and attacks the homeowner with intent to injure/kill them. Are you saying that the homeowner would be sinning if they took out their only gun and used it in defense of their own life? Are you saying that they would be using the gun in anger? I’d suggest they would be using in in FEAR but not in anger. There is no way that someone who is using a gun to defend him/herself from being killed is using a gun in anger. The gun owner did not go out looking for trouble. The gun owner did not use the gun offensively (like a vigilante might). The gun owner was attacked, fought back, and followed the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaching that REQUIRES you defend your own life (and the lives of your family members).

 

[Bennie_P]

And again you try to obscure the issue under discussion while ignoring what was actually written and injecting sarcastic insult.

It should be fairly obvious, even to you, that I was speaking of legitimate self-defense. As it should be obvious that the Church does not ban or even discourage the use of arms in legitimate defense, and even encourages it under the correct circumstances.

I’m sorry you feel offended, but you, among others keep streching parts of “Church” teachings and imposing your personal interpretation what constitutes the obligation of self defense to promote, or oppose any suggestion for any type of senisble gun control, when there is no difinitive teaching on gun control coming from the Church. I see that as being dishonest for you to continue to do that, even when there are bishops and other Church leaders that appear to disagree with your opinion and stand on gun control. So in order to be charitable I put in the smiley faces, to take the edge off of my disagreement of the statements,** I feel, **that you make that are in error.

Any person that is of the opinion that they have a need of a handgun for protection, I assume that they most likely already own one, the need you indicated is a false premise and the purpose of the law was intended to prevent people out of anger or emotion, go purchase a gun while they are in that state of mind and turn around, before they have had a time to cool down, go blow someone away. Though I disagree with Sixtus on the issue of hunting, and ownership of handguns for self-defense, he is right the" 'pro’fesssional gun lobby" does split hairs. on the arguments. Myself, I do believe we have the right to own firearms, but I also believe as Christians and Catholics we need to think of and consider the suffering of others, thus we should to be willing to sacrifice convenience, in the way of restrictive laws and regulation when it comes to hand-gun ownership, in order to prevent more guns getting into the wrong hands. Myself I haven’t owned a hand gun since 1982 and do not plan on purchasing one in the new future, but I do enjoy other type of shooting sports. I really feel for all the people that live in such fear, that they see a need to own handguns or any type of firearm for protection. (I live in the inner city and I don’t live in such fear.)
I truly think this all or nothing attitude will result in the elimination of all firearms. If it isn’t the gun owner that is willing to sacrifice somewhat in thier convenience and if it isn’t the gun owner that steps to the forefront of gun control issue, then the day will come there will be no private gun owners.

As for using sarcasim I’m just following Christ example on this issue of the sword.
Luke 22:38 But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. (We will protect you against the armies of Rome with this two swords, :knight2:we don’t just have one but two:bounce
And he said to them: It is enough**.doh2:you still don’t get it, :shrug:three years with me and you still don’t get it. :banghead: ) **
note My comments in bold.*

I have done a lot reading and research over this verse over that last week and every commentator I have read concerning this verse, indicates that Jesus was rebuking the disciples on this issue that they needed swords for what was about to come, the statement, ‘it is enough’, is like the way we say today “that is enough of this foolishness” and some refer to Deut. 3:26 for example
And the Lord was angry with me on your account and heard me not, but said to me:** It is enough: speak no more to me of this matter. **

OK, now have we gotten back to the discussion in a serious enough demeaner? In my own way I’m trying to be charitable, I’m not trying to make you angry I’m trying to challenge you in the way you look at this issue.

 

[Sixtus]

Man posted:

I have some skill with a firearm, though, I always preferred the bow. Should bows and crossbows be registered? Does owning a sword describe a personal desire to kill?

I have some skill with a firearm, though, I always preferred the bow. Should bows and crossbows be registered? Does owning a sword describe a personal desire to kill?

I used to be an Infantry Weapons Systems Instructor. Though military training, possess a lot of skill with firearms.

I possess both firearms and sword but can categorically state that I would not use either in anger even if threatened. I simply do not possess the ability or potential to wilfully kill or seriously injure another human being.

I also believe that any equipment which has the potential to injure or destroy life SHOULD BE put on licence.

When I used to train troops,I always allowed my ‘pro-life’ conception of Catholicism to influence my instruction. I worked very closely with the Rules of Engagement. I used to add the addendum that ’ to try to kill an enemy is a war crime. If they die as a result of contact then that is regretful but accepable mitigation but to set out with the intent to kill is murder and wrong.

As a civlian, among other things, in my spare time I teach marksmanship principles to serious competetive sportsmen who shoot at NRA and NSRA 10 bull paper targets. I am overly keen that military ‘man’ targets are not used and in fact are forbidden on any ranges that I supervise as they possess the potential to dehumanise and devalue human life!

As a civilian, I possess both firearms and sword but can categorically state that I would not use either in anger

What you chose to do is up to you. I am not trying to tell you that would be wrong. I am merely putting forward my argument and Catholic pro-life position.

I repeat: professional combatants and police aside, I am interested to explore what the thoughts are that gets an ordinary citizen off when faced with the ability and opportunity to kill or motivates them to obtain a firearm knowing they may use it to destroy life.

 

[melensdad]

As a civilian, I possess both firearms and sword but can categorically state that I would not use either in anger

What you chose to do is up to you. I am not trying to tell you that would be wrong. I am merely putting forward my argument and Catholic pro-life position.

I am a very pro-life gun owning Catholic. I also hope to NEVER be face to face with anyone who would try to kill me or my family. The pro-life position of the church is, however, a pro-innocent-life position. The church, as written in the CCC, clearly states you have a grave duty to defend yourself from being killed. How you do that is your choice. If you can lock yourself in a secure room and wait for the police, that is a viable option. If you are unable to do that and are face to face, then you are still held to the ‘grave duty’ standard of the Church, which means you are obligated to defend your life. You can choose a gun, a knife, your fists, or a big fluffy feather pillow . . . literally anything that works can and should be employed to defend your life. What you use, how you employ it is not within the church teachings. However what is clearly written is that you MUST do something to protect YOUR life.

It would be a sin to allow yourself to be killed because you chose to take a passive role and not defend yourself. I say it would be a sin only because of the “grave duty” clause in the CCC. If the Church did not feel it was your obligation then they would not have considered it a “grave” matter.

Bennie P wrote to Rob:
Bennie P:

you, among others keep streching parts of “Church” teachings and imposing your personal interpretation what constitutes the obligation of self defense to promote, or oppose any suggestion for any type of senisble gun control, when there is no difinitive teaching on gun control coming from the Church.

I think you actually misinterpret much of the Pro-Gun argument. Clearly there are strong self-defense writings from the Catholic Church. There are no clear messages on HOW you should defend yourself. There is no dictate mandating what you use to defend yourself. There is simply a clear statement of duty that you do it. HOWEVER, your view of “sensible” gun control and other’s views of “sensible” gun control seem to be the sticking point. You have admitted that guns are not the root cause of violence. You have admitted that gun laws are not being enforced. You have stated that gun laws need to be ‘reformed’ and you continually call for additional new laws as part of those reforms.

The pro-gun side is simply saying there are 20,000 gun laws on the books. Why don’t you start by enforcing THOSE EXISTING laws before you start to impose a whole new set of laws that will turn honest citizens into criminals by asking us to do things that we do not see as “sensible” things to do?!?

 

[Man]

…
As for using sarcasim I’m just following Christ example on this issue of the sword.
Luke 22:38 But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. (We will protect you against the armies of Rome with this two swords, :knight2:we don’t just have one but two:bounce
And he said to them: It is enough**.doh2:you still don’t get it, :shrug:three years with me and you still don’t get it. :banghead: ) **
note My comments in bold.*
…

Hmmm, I have not entered into much of the “how much” gun control debate. Certainly, though, in this context, and knowing that a sword was, in fact, taken to the garden, we could conclude that the defense wasn’t against the army, but rather against criminal hanging out there at night. We must regard the Lord as prudent.

 

[Bennie_P]

Hmmm, I have not entered into much of the “how much” gun control debate. Certainly, though, in this context, and knowing that a sword was, in fact, taken to the garden, we could conclude that the defense wasn’t against the army, but rather against criminal hanging out there at night. We must regard the Lord as prudent.

I suggest more bible study, that is of the Holy Bible, not the “Shooters Bible” or the “American Rifleman.”

 

[Man]

… There are no clear messages on HOW you should defend yourself. There is no dictate mandating what you use to defend yourself. There is simply a clear statement of duty that you do it. HOWEVER, your view of “sensible” gun control and other’s views of “sensible” gun control seem to be the sticking point. You have admitted that guns are not the root cause of violence. You have admitted that gun laws are not being enforced. You have stated that gun laws need to be ‘reformed’ and you continually call for additional new laws as part of those reforms.
…

Bishops and priests are generally taken hostage… I assume they use word against rifle…

 

[Man]

I suggest more bible study, that is of the Holy Bible, not the “Shooters Bible” or the “American Rifleman.”

You don’t get me at all…

13 [38] It is enough!: the farewell discourse ends abruptly with these words of Jesus spoken to the disciples when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world’s hostility.

What if I dissent because a sword was, in fact, taken to the garden?

 

[Sixtus]

Melensdad posted:

However what is clearly written is that you MUST do something to protect YOUR life.

You are probably right. But there does seem to be an extra-ordinary obsession with ‘guns’ which grossely outweighs the threat.

In a modern democratic society with an organised police dept I just do not see the need to walk around armed to the back teeth that the extremely unlikely event of an armed confrontation is likely to occur where one has to 'defend one’s life.

It seems the gun lobby are using paranoic fear of something extremely unlikely ever to happen, to justify an excessive obsession with instruments designed in the first instance to kill and destroy life.

Such attitude just dehamises human life and labels some folk worthy of being killed. This is just a modern form of witch-hunting

 

[Bennie_P]

You don’t get me at all…

13 [38] It is enough!: the farewell discourse ends abruptly with these words of Jesus spoken to the disciples when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world’s hostility.

What if I dissent because a sword was, in fact, taken to the garden?

Yes it was, but Jesus rebuked the user of it.

Matt 26:51 - 52 And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Of course all of this has been discussed before, and the view of the “gun lobby” on Luke Chapter 22 is an ‘ultra’ fundamentalist protestant view. This idea of self-determination, self-willed, the “Lord will do for those that will do for themselves.” attitude which is contrary to the way the Catholic Church views the world and how the Chrisitans fits into it. That is how as Christian we are wholly dependant on God, for all that we have and for all that we hope to have.

Bishops and priests are generally taken hostage… I assume they use word against rifle

…
Actually by thier vows priests, I believe, are not allowed to take up arms, for they represent Christ for us here on earth. And as in the name “christian” meaning “Chrsit - like”, we that claim that name, should also take the same example of Christ and walk to the garden and through the world unarmed , except with the sword of truth.

 

[melensdad]

You are probably right. But there does seem to be an extra-ordinary obsession with ‘guns’ which grossely outweighs the threat.

Clearly this thread is, in fact, all about GUNS that is the point of the thread. I started the thread asking why so many in the Catholic Church (specifically the Bishops and clergy) preach an anti-gun message. I didn’t specify type. I didn’t specify use. During the course of this thread I did a lot of research and a lot of people contributed with specific writings from the Vatican, the CCC and other sources. But the WHOLE POINT of the thread is guns and it originally had nothing to do with any “obsession” or “threat” as you suggest.

It seems the gun lobby are using **paranoic fear **of something extremely unlikely ever to happen, to justify an excessive obsession with instruments designed in the first instance to kill and destroy life.

Such attitude just dehamises human life and labels some folk worthy of being killed. This is just a modern form of witch-hunting

I’m sorry but I certainly don’t see much of that in this thread Now if we go over to some of the dedicated gun forums that might be the case. But here in this thread much of the discussion about firearms has been recreational use. Much has be in home self defense. There has been actually very little discussed about the armed citizens who carry guns with them everywhere they go. Yes, that topic has come up, but it has clearly not been a focus point here in this thread.

You are painting a very broad brush stroke with your statement and I think it is unfair to characterize the pro-gun people in this thread in such a dim light. Especially unfair when they (we) have not been making paranoid arguments, as you suggest. Nobody is talking about being a vigilante so no modern form of witch hunting should even be applied or suggested.

Further, in the posts were the topic of DEFENSIVE use of guns comes up, and that is clearly NOT all of the posts, it is backed up with the CCC and the pro-life position that clearly is NOT a dehumanizing position but an affirmation of life and the value of innocent life.

 

[Man]

Yes it was, but Jesus rebuked the user of it.

Matt 26:51 - 52 And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Of course all of this has been discussed before, and the view of the “gun lobby” on Luke Chapter 22 is an ‘ultra’ fundamentalist protestant view. This idea of self-determination, self-willed, the “Lord will do for those that will do for themselves.” attitude which is contrary to the way the Catholic Church views the world and how the Chrisitans fits into it. That is how as Christian we are wholly dependant on God, for all that we have and for all that we hope to have.

Actually by thier vows priests, I believe, are not allowed to take up arms, for they represent Christ for us here on earth. And as in the name “christian” meaning “Chrsit - like”, we that claim that name, should also take the same example of Christ and walk to the garden and through the world unarmed , except with the sword of truth.

“Defending the Catechism”

David, a man, praising the Lord, comes to His Holiness Benedict XVI and to you my brothers and sisters, to discuss the validity of holding arms for ones own protection. I offer this for the deposit of faith.

This discussion is intrinsic to Jesus ministry and crucifixion, particularly near the Passion.

We must reflect on two passages in particular for understanding. First, Luke 22:38, wherein Jesus remarks of the two swords “It is enough!”

I propose that His intention was multiple. First, that the blades would be sufficient to deter the natural threat of entering into a public garden in the midst of the night. And second, and more importantly to be prepared to defend oneself with truth.

The first has been denied in light of the second. But he explains in the second passage (Matthew 26:46-57) that He is protected by a “more than twelve legions of angels.” Thus, I can make a defense for those who carry arms for self-defense using:

Hermas

“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

In the same way, these know themselves to be inadequately protected. They must, nonetheless, be prepared for death do to being armed. But Jesus rebuke of Peter is more than that. It is simultaneously a rebuke for his lack of faith, pertaining to his and Jesus well-being, and respect for Peter’s responsibility to uphold the law, even resorting to violence. This, a very orthodox application of both Jewish and Catholic tradition. He is essentially protecting the Kingdom of God, which Jesus points out needs no defense: “But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?”

Here, Peter is rebuked for protecting Jesus, not from a robber, as contrasted later in the passage, but rather the militia, the will of the people themselves, for justice, including the trial of Jesus. Thus, Jesus is to be delivered up to the governmental authorities for which he has a certain respect, pointing out earlier that they deserve both the shelter and clothing they take for themselves.

And the militia, in turn, is rebuked for coming against the peaceable, even though Peter is armed, as if against a robber.

(His actions defended) Peter is not arrested.

What occurs next is not just a demonstration of God’s love, but of God submitting to the imperfect justice system of man. It is done in a way that points out the faults of the justice systems of man. Here, Caesar the “bringer of peace” protects the empire against a popular peaceful movement lead by the “Bringer of Peace.” Nonetheless, the peaceful movement continues, fulfilled by Caesar’s empire’s actions.

In this way, we see that Jesus brings not revolution, but a certain orientation toward the Father, and only in His manner can we find Justice.

May you all inherit the Peace and Joy of our Lord Jesus, in whose name we pray. Amen.

 

[Sixtus]

Melens dad posted

[QUOTEc]learly this thread is, in fact, all about GUNS that is the point of the thread. I started the thread asking why so many in the Catholic Church (specifically the Bishops and clergy) preach an anti-gun message… I did a lot of research and a lot of people contributed… from the Vatican, the CCC and other sources… the WHOLE POINT of the thread is guns and it originally had nothing to do with any “obsession” or “threat” as you suggest.

First may I apologise and ask your forgiveness for misunderstanding the point of the thread and if I accidentally derailed the thread.

My point is that the Catholic Church must endorce the legitimate use of arms by the State else their own Swiss Guards [besides pikes] would not carry semi-auto’s. Jesus in fact condoned it by not rebuking the soldiers who went to Him for advice. He said ‘no intimidation’ not ‘no soldiering!’

But of civilian use, He said ‘those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword!’. The CC has no choice but to follow and prosecute His teachings.

Now if St Gabriel is the patron Saint of handgunners, who is the patron Saints of Riflemen and Grenadiers