Gun Control

[Ender]

Aaah, for those following, this is the classic mistake the person above repeatedly makes. He takes the “Sword” passage separate from the “money bag” passage etc.

The point is that the entire passage is a figurative call to prepare spiritually to the turmoil about to come. Not get a money bag or a sword to fend off attackers. This is blatantly obvious that it was not Jesus’ teaching from reading acts of the Apostles and Jesus’ other teachings. Jesus specifically advised disciples to not take any money and worry about what they would eat etc as they preach. If Jesus was indeed speaking literally in any part of that verse in Luke, then Jesus is contradicting himself.

Ah, well Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t seem to have agreed with your “blatantly obvious” interpretation as he addressed this specific passage in Sermon CXLV.

*"**But now, He says, he that has a purse, let him take it, and a bag in like manner." Tell me then, was this because on second thoughts a more serviceable plan was devised? Would it have been better on the former occasion also to have had bag and purse? Or if not, what was the cause of so sudden a change? What need had the holy apostles of purse and bag? What answer must we give to this? That the saying in appearance had reference to them, but in reality applied to the person of every Jew: for they it rather was. whom Christ addressed. For He did not say that the holy apostles must get purse and bag, but that “whosoever has a purse, let him take it,” meaning thereby, that whosoever had property in the Jewish territories, should collect all that he had together, and flee, so that if he could any how save himself, he might do so. But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives. For war shall befal them with such unendurable impetuosity, that nothing shall be able to stand against it. *

Sometimes one wonders if the people who write these things think twice about what they write.

Personal interpretation of scripture is always a tricky thing. That’s why I prefer to find out how the Church interprets these things.

The fact that the first Christians never bothered to keep swords and individually fight off Roman persecutors as personal defense is proof that Jesus was not asking to take swords for personal defense.

That, however, is exactly what Cyril understood this passage to mean.

Oh how far Christians have strayed from the early church.

By “early Church” do you mean the one of which Cyril was a part?

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Ah, well Cyril of Alexandria doesn’t seem to have agreed with your “blatantly obvious” interpretation as he addressed this specific passage in Sermon CXLV.

*"**But now, He says, he that has a purse, let him take it, and a bag in like manner." Tell me then, was this because on second thoughts a more serviceable plan was devised? Would it have been better on the former occasion also to have had bag and purse? Or if not, what was the cause of so sudden a change? What need had the holy apostles of purse and bag? What answer must we give to this? That the saying in appearance had reference to them, but in reality applied to the person of every *Jew: for they it rather was. whom Christ addressed. For He did not say that the holy apostles must get purse and bag, but that “whosoever has a purse, let him take it,” meaning thereby, that whosoever had property in the Jewish territories, should collect all that he had together, and flee, so that if he could any how save himself, he might do so. But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives. For war shall befal them with such unendurable impetuosity, that nothing shall be able to stand against it.
Personal interpretation of scripture is always a tricky thing. That’s why I prefer to find out how the Church interprets these things.
That, however, is exactly what Cyril understood this passage to mean.
By “early Church” do you mean the one of which Cyril was a part?

Ender

My dear friends, this is yet another example of how misleading an interpretation some people will go to.

St. Cyril of Alexandria’s document quoted above, even if accurate in his interpretation, was addressing EVERY JEW. NOT people like those who are posting here today. The sermon above tries to connect Jesus prediction of the fall of Jerusalem to the passage in Luke. However, the above, by St. Cyril is just a personal interpretation. If the above poster had been so honest enough to quote the rest of the sermon, one would see the anti-Semitic ideas in the sermon. I suppose we should take that as the official position of the early church as well then?

So no my dear friends, when in doubt, always turn to Scripture, Tradition or Church. Not some sermon by an individual.

If we see the book of Acts, there is no mention of any sermon by ANY apostle asking to bear weapons for personal defense. Furthermore, there is no mention at any point of any one being exulted for defending oneself when attacked by persecutors.

The poster above, by his dishonesty in avoiding the problematic parts of the sermon which would have reduced any credibility of that sermon it-self, clearly shows what lengths some of our “Catholic” brethren would go to justify ones own ideas.

Our call my dear friends is to follow and imitate Christ. Christ died on the cross, begging God to forgive his persecutors. His followers like St. Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, did not carry a sword or call out Christians to obey Christ’s command to “have a sword for personal defense” but pleaded with God to forgive. If St. Stephen had decided to go down fighting, or had not asked God to forgive those who shed his blood, Saul, who was present there at the persecution would be no more and we would not have a St. Paul.

That my friends, is the reality of Christianity that some wish to distort for personal gain and self-justification. The most vicious sinner one day, maybe one of the apostles of Christ the other day that will lead, not just millions, but generations to Jesus like in the case of St. Paul.

I ask again, do not be fooled but pray for them that they may one day turn to the truth!

God Bless

 

[ttaM]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

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.

Look, you can argue against this as much as you want and talk about “turning to the truth,” but as far as ddarko goes, his form of “strict Roman Catholicism” that he claims in his personal profile is apparently open to the “cafeteria” as much as any other patron of cafeteria Catholicism.

I don’t know where you are from, but in the United States, the citizens of this country are entrusted with the “legitimate authority” of the Constitution and upheld as an individual right by the Supreme Court (also a legitimate authority) to own a firearm and defend oneself and community. Therefore, the person has the right to bear “arms” against unjust aggressors.

Go ahead and keep arguing, but you’re arguing against the doctrine of the Church as spelled out quite clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Gun owners have a legitimate use for their firearms to defend themselves, their families, and their communities. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a 9mm I’ve been neglecting to clean and I don’t want the barrel to start pitting.

God Bless.

 

[ddarko]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Look, you can argue against this as much as you want and talk about “turning to the truth,” but as far as ddarko goes, his form of “strict Roman Catholicism” that he claims in his personal profile is apparently open to the “cafeteria” as much as any other patron of cafeteria Catholicism.

I don’t know where you are from, but in the United States, the citizens of this country are entrusted with the “legitimate authority” of the Constitution and upheld as an individual right by the Supreme Court (also a legitimate authority) to own a firearm and defend oneself and community. Therefore, the person has the right to bear “arms” against unjust aggressors.

Go ahead and keep arguing, but you’re arguing against the doctrine of the Church as spelled out quite clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Gun owners have a legitimate use for their firearms to defend themselves, their families, and their communities. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a 9mm I’ve been neglecting to clean and I don’t want the barrel to start pitting.

God Bless.

Here is the best kind of twisting by some who want to accuse others of “Cafeteria Catholicism” when it disagrees with their view.

Lets look at the first Catechism quote:

"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:"

It’s a bit baffling but no-one disagrees with the above. It merely states that it is not a sin to do so. I agree.

But what I disagree with is carrying weapons by civilians.

Which leads us to the second twist at the hands of the above poster:-

"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."

Now it maybe that some really do not know how to read the Catechism. But assuming the above poster knew, he has twisted words meant for “AUTHORITY” to apply to every civilian who wishes to own a gun. That is incorrect. While it maybe according to the US constitution or Law, it is not in accordance with any Catholic teaching. Hence why the USCCB and Vatican is trying its best to gradually take away all hand guns from society except for those in authority.

To quote from the Community and Crime: A Statement of the Committee on Social Development and World Peace, 1978.

We believe that only **prohibition **of the importation, manufacture, sale, **possession **and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.

I assume now the entire USCCB are cafeteria Catholics according to the above poster.

The Catechism in this section is speaking about authority like the Government Law enforcement agencies, Military etc. It does not apply to mere individuals. The above poster’s attempt is similar to trying to apply the just war doctrine to individuals.

So as you can see, all we have is a mockery of the Catechism to support ones own twisted life style. One poster twisted Scripture, another twisted a Sermon by St. Cyril and finally we have a twister from the Catechism.

This my friends is the type of problem we face today. Our main enemies are not outside the church but right within the church and those who state are following the Catechisms etc. Let us not be fooled, stand firm, and pray for their conversion back to the truth!

God Bless

 

[ttaM]

The findings and opinion of the USCCB in the respect of the report you have provided are not morally binding on any individual. Anyone with half a brain will know that the USCCB has for decades promoted a liberal, politically motivated agenda not in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic faith. And though I would not say the “entire” USCCB can be accused of cafeteria Catholicism, I would say that YES IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that members of the USCCB are guilty of cafeteria Catholicism, if not far worse.

Whether you like it or not, the United States of America is governed by the people. Civilian authority has complete control over our military, and the Constitution guarantees all authority not reserved by the government as the rights of the citizens. The second amendment grants the civilian, non-governmental militia, the legitimate authority to defend themselves and the state through possession, ownership, and use of firearms.

Legitimate authority is not reserved in any strict since to “government.” Our country is governed for the people and by the people. The people are the legitimate authority of this nation. I would like you to please provide any doctrinal statement that defines governmental public office and/or law enforcement in the service of these offices as the only entities that can be considered legitimate authority.

Good luck.

 

[ddarko]

The findings and opinion of the USCCB in the respect of the report you have provided are not morally binding on any individual. Anyone with half a brain will know that the USCCB has for decades promoted a liberal, politically motivated agenda not in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic faith. And though I would not say the “entire” USCCB can be accused of cafeteria Catholicism, I would say that YES IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that members of the USCCB are guilty of cafeteria Catholicism, if not far worse.

My dear friends, I think this person’s statements speak for themselves. The people who make sure that the Catholic Church is properly functioning in the United States is already out of order. In any case, the I have shown why the Catechism passages were misinterpreted by this individual to which he has provided no real reply.

Whether you like it or not, the United States of America is governed by the people. Civilian authority has complete control over our military, and the Constitution guarantees all authority not reserved by the government as the rights of the citizens. The second amendment grants the civilian, non-governmental militia, the legitimate authority to defend themselves and the state through possession, ownership, and use of firearms.

A classic example of confusion here by the poster.

In this discussion, we are assessing whether the US constitution is morally correct in allowing fire arms to be carried by all citizens. Then to argue that “It must be ok to carry fire arms because the constitution says so” is circular and an improper use of logic.

T
Legitimate authority is not reserved in any strict since to “government.” Our country is governed for the people and by the people. The people are the legitimate authority of this nation. I would like you to please provide any doctrinal statement that defines governmental public office and/or law enforcement in the service of these offices as the only entities that can be considered legitimate authority.

Once again, the poster seems a bit clueless on reading the catechism. Those with legitimate authority does not mean everyone in a nation. If we apply the term “legitimate authority” in that sense, then there would be no distinction between the teaching magestirum and lay people when it comes to authority either.

One should just re-read the church document I presented earlier who clearly show WHO is legitimate authority and therefore should be exempted from a ban on handguns. Hint: It does not say “All American Citizens”

I guess when one becomes desperate, even common sense goes out of the window and ones settles for madness. Let us keep praying that they will see the light of truth!

God Bless

 

[ttaM]

Unfortunately I see no confusion in my logic. You can continue to attempt to twist words to justify your own agenda, but from reading this forum thread, there are happily many who are not buying into your narrow minded arguments.

If you are wondering why the Catholic Church in the United States is in such a sorry state, you need to look no further than the USCCB and your own doorstep. There are many level-headed Bishops in the U.S. that do not agree with the findings of the greater board of the USCCB, which probably outsourced the job of researching that report to a group of ivory tower academics. I’ve known a lot of “Catholic” scholars in my day and I wouldn’t trust my own children around them. I’d keep a close eye on my wallet too in their presence.

Again, please provide any doctrinal statement limiting the term “legitimate authority” to elected governmental agencies. Opinions don’t count, even if they’re from the Pope himself.

I pray that you sometime find your way back onto the narrow path.

God Bless you too!

 

[ddarko]

Unfortunately I see no confusion in my logic. You can continue to attempt to twist words to justify your own agenda, but from reading this forum thread, there are happily many who are not buying into your narrow minded arguments.

When Jesus spoke, many didn’t buy in to his arguments. I find it hardly the right standard to go by

As for the above posters logical difficulties, I believe they are better addressed in a class room.

Just to reiterate the logical error in the argument

1. Is it moral to carry arms?
2. United States constitution gives everyone the right to carry arms
3. Therefore it must be moral to carry arms

The confusion here is morality is not determined by the constitution and in a broader sense, this discussion is questioning if the constitution is right.

If you are wondering why the Catholic Church in the United States is in such a sorry state, you need to look no further than the USCCB and your own doorstep. There are many level-headed Bishops in the U.S. that do not agree with the findings of the greater board of the USCCB, which probably outsourced the job of researching that report to a group of ivory tower academics. I’ve known a lot of “Catholic” scholars in my day and I wouldn’t trust my own children around them. I’d keep a close eye on my wallet too in their presence.

I would say my dear friends, that the sorry state of affairs of the United States Catholic church is more due to people who misunderstand and misuse Scripture, Church fathers, Catechism of the Catholic church to justify their own life styles rather than try to ADJUST their life according to the teaching.

Again, please provide any doctrinal statement limiting the term “legitimate authority” to elected governmental agencies. Opinions don’t count, even if they’re from the Pope himself.

Legitimate Authority is not a religious term to have doctrinal documents declaring what it is. This sort of shows how confused the poster is. It is like asking, please show me where the Catholic Church dogmatically defines “NOT” or “AND” or some other word like “Abortion” etc. Then some “Catholics” try to justify their own life style as not being WITHIN these definitions since no such Dogmatic definition exists.

You have to wonder who they are lying to.

But anyway, if the person took the time to read the Scripture, he would know that there are those in Authority like the State, kings etc and those who are NOT in authority. Just because someone is part of a nation does not mean they have LEGITIMATE authority.

Let us keep praying that they may first be honest to themselves!

God Bless

 

[ttaM]

At this point you’re starting to lose me.

The logic that you stated is not the logic I was using. I was not claiming that solely because the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to carry firearms that it is therefore moral. I am arguing that because the government is a legitimate authority that it has the power to confer this right and authority for the protection of the community on the people of this nation. The government only has legitimate authority because it is agreed so by the citizens of the country in the first place.

Then you go and point to individuals in the bible such as “kings” that have legitimate authority? Is this a joke? The Divine Right doctrine, blood lineage, and empire building does not exactly constitute the legitimate authority of these so called kings to govern. If there is any legitimate authority in this world, it is the government of the United States. And our government bestows this authority on the people.

As hard as it might be to believe, the people can be their own governing authority. This argument that there is a division between the government and the citizenry is specious when it comes to the United States.

I’m not looking for a dogmatic definition of “legitimate authority” from you. But I am looking for a doctrinal statement that references legitimate authority and backs your argument that the citizenry cannot be part of this authority.

Your own argument that there is no true definition is backfiring on you, as it has become impossible for you to defend your distinction between those in authority and those who are not.

Now I’m going to go do something with my Saturday night that does not involve arguing with you about whether the country I live in needs to justify itself to the 1978 United States Council of Catholic Bishops.

Have a good night.

 

[ddarko]

At this point you’re starting to lose me.

The logic that you stated is not the logic I was using. I was not claiming that solely because the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to carry firearms that it is therefore moral. I am arguing that because the government is a legitimate authority that it has the power to confer this right and authority for the protection of the community on the people of this nation. The government only has legitimate authority because it is agreed so by the citizens of the country in the first place.

Then you go and point to individuals in the bible such as “kings” that have legitimate authority? Is this a joke? The Divine Right doctrine, blood lineage, and empire building does not exactly constitute the legitimate authority of these so called kings to govern. If there is any legitimate authority in this world, it is the government of the United States. And our government bestows this authority on the people.

As hard as it might be to believe, the people can be their own governing authority. This argument that there is a division between the government and the citizenry is specious when it comes to the United States.

I’m not looking for a dogmatic definition of “legitimate authority” from you. But I am looking for a doctrinal statement that references legitimate authority and backs your argument that the citizenry cannot be part of this authority.

Your own argument that there is no true definition is backfiring on you, as it has become impossible for you to defend your distinction between those in authority and those who are not.

Now I’m going to go do something with my Saturday night that does not involve arguing with you about whether the country I live in needs to justify itself to the 1978 United States Council of Catholic Bishops.

Have a good night.

The fact that Citizenry can’t be authority as well is obvious.

For if Citizenry are all authority, who is the authority governing?

So in any case, it should be logically obvious to you why your position is logically unacceptable.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

We’ve been through this many times in the past. From the Vatican’s own website …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…

… Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).​

Read what that says (and I’m para-phrasing here) … “Defense by arms exists and that right is a serious DUTY for those responsible for others” – INCLUDING family members. Those responsible for the common good of the family … NOT families or the family institution but the FAMILY – have a GRAVE duty to protection WITH arms.

 

[TimothyH]

Carry a gun? Who ya gonna kill? And for what? Do you really want to stand in front of Jesus and explain how you took a human life over a TV or a wallet or a BMW? Not me.

And what if your life is in danger or that of your familiy? Is it really the criminal who is taking your life or is it God who is using the criminal to call you back to where you have to go one way or another. The best anyone of us can hope for is to die peacefully and that favor is granted only to a few. You are going to die anyway, by bus crash or stroke or heart attack and so who says that being killed by a criminal is any worse or that it is worth taking a human life for? How will you explain that to Jesus?

Jesus: Why did you kill a man?
Disciple: I was in fear of my life. He was going to kill me.
Jesus: Was his life more valuable than yours or that of your son or daughter? Was it not I who was calling you back?

Having watched my own daughter die, I ask why we are so afraid? Why are we so afraid to die or so afraid of suffering or of our family suffering? I’m not going to stand in front of Jesus and have to explain why my property or even my sinful life was more valuable than another human being’s life. My only prayer is that I live until the rest of my kids can survive on their own.

I have no problem with anyone carrying a gun and hope that God blesses and protects our soliders and law enforcement officers who do so out of duty to the greater good for society. just think that anyone who carries a gun, especially a Catholic Christian, should think long and hard before they do so or before they actually use it on another human being.

-Tim-

 

[tommcguire]

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.’ Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?” I Cor 1:118-20

As we debate the need for gun control, I cannot help but think there is a lot of the wisdom of the world in what we say. Cleaning the 9 mm, authority of the Constitution, authority of the citizen to use a weapon in self defense. I submit this is all about wisdom of this world.

The Church recognizes we are sinners and makes exceptions that excuse our violent acts. The teaching of the Church evolves; we no longer believe the world is flat, that the Jews as a people killed Jesus, that all who are not Catholic will go to hell, that all non-Christian religions are of the devil. We no longer think it is appropriate for missionaries to use threat of violence to convert people to Jesus Christ.

I believe someday Catholics will come to imitate Jesus to such an extent they will not carry guns to defend themselves, they will not engage in war, they will not turn to any form of violence to spread the good news. As we get closer to God’s will being done on earth as it is in heave, Catholics will proclaim the good news from the the deeds of mercy, healing, and forgiveness. Love of enemy, doing good to those who persecute, turning the other cheek, proclaiming freedom to captives will invite conversion to Jesus Christ. The value of life will be proclaimed not by violence but by living in the fullness of God’s wisdom.

The Kingdom of God is not yet here, so we will continue to live with those who need guns to defend themselves. God have mercy on us.

 

[ddarko]

We’ve been through this many times in the past. From the Vatican’s own website …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…

… Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).​

Read what that says (and I’m para-phrasing here) … “Defense by arms exists and that right is a serious DUTY for those responsible for others” – INCLUDING family members. Those responsible for the common good of the family … NOT families or the family institution but the FAMILY – have a GRAVE duty to protection WITH arms.

As the above poster has claimed he has had repeated discussion using the above, I have enlarged the section he seems to be missing every time. It is only for those in authority FOR THE common good of things. It is not for individuals.

I hope the followers of this thread can see how much misuse and abuse is being done by those who do not seem to have a clue how to read a Vatican document. When one starts with a need to justify ones own life, everything seems to be supportive of their position.

I would also at this time like to point out how, even if the above did state such a thing, we have the Catechism which highlights “legitimate authority”, the Scriptures which CLEARLY do not support the idea of citizens arming themselves for personal defense. Therefore we have to disregard the above as merely a personal opinion which is in error. So just as these persons like the above poster cherish in undermining documents released against gun possession by the USCCB and the Vatican it-self in other documents, the same could be said about the above document and simply be disregarded.

Therefore in any case, the above poster, who repeatedly seems to use the above has still fail to realize how useless the evidence he has presented. You can almost see the hypocrisy in wanting admit a Vatican released document which has just as much fallibility as the USCCB released document that is against gun possession which they do not want to trust in. It’s a pity really but what can else can one do when ones own life style is under attack.

Let us pray for their difficulties and ask the Holy Spirit to give them the strength to make the tough choices to correct their lives no matter what the cost.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I believe someday Catholics will come to imitate Jesus to such an extent they will not carry guns to defend themselves,…

They already have my friend in most countries. Just go across the border from the United States to see how many Canadians care about carrying guns for self defense.

They couldn’t care less and they live happier lives. Most of the violent crimes involved actually happen when someone has a gun.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

As the above poster has claimed he has had repeated discussion using the above, I have enlarged the section he seems to be missing every time. It is only for those in authority FOR THE common good of things. It is not for individuals.

This is where you are completely off base. It is the father, the husband, the mother, etc.; who are responsible for the common good of the family. I have a responsible to feed them, cloth them, educate them, etc. AND protect them. Failure to do so, is in fact a sin. And if I have a duty to protect them, I need the means by which to protect them. You can not tell me that I have a duty to do something and then deny me the means by which to do it.

I hope the followers of this thread can see how much misuse and abuse is being done by those who do not seem to have a clue how to read a Vatican document.

Yes we have and we are all hoping that you will stop doing that and misleading people.

When one starts with a need to justify ones own life, everything seems to be supportive of their position.

Maybe everything SEEMS to support that position because it IS intended to support that position.

I would also at this time like to point out how, even if the above did state such a thing, we have the Catechism which highlights “legitimate authority”,

“Legitimate” refers to the action being lawful – not “official”. The right to self defense applies to ALL. Only those who have harden their hearts and refuse to see will draw a different conclusion from the Catechism: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.​

the Scriptures which CLEARLY do not support the idea of citizens arming themselves for personal defense. Therefore we have to disregard the above as merely a personal opinion which is in error.

The Scriptures CLEARLY support the idea of citizens arming themselves for personal defense. Therefore we have to disregard the above as merely a personal opinion which is in error.

Therefore in any case, the above poster, who repeatedly seems to use the above has still fail to realize how useless the evidence he has presented. You can almost see the hypocrisy in wanting admit a Vatican released document which has just as much fallibility as the USCCB released document that is against gun possession which they do not want to trust in. It’s a pity really but what can else can one do when ones own life style is under attack.

A document released by the Vatican carries much more weight than any document released by the USCCB and the document released by the Vatican is consistent with OFFICIAL Church teaching as found in the Catechism – we have a right and a duty to defense … therefore, we can not be denied the means by which to perform that right and duty! The one released by the USCCB is not.

Let us pray for their difficulties and ask the Holy Spirit to give them the strength to make the tough choices to correct their lives no matter what the cost.

Let us pray for their difficulties and ask the Holy Spirit to give them the strength to make the tough choices to correct their lives no matter what the cost.

 

[ddarko]

This is where you are completely off base. It is the father, the husband, the mother, etc.; who are responsible for the common good of the family. I have a responsible to feed them, cloth them, educate them, etc. AND protect them. Failure to do so, is in fact a sin. And if I have a duty to protect them, I need the means by which to protect them. You can not tell me that I have a duty to do something and then deny me the means by which to do it.

“Legitimate” refers to the action being lawful – not “official”. The right to self defense applies to ALL. Only those who have harden their hearts and refuse to see will draw a different conclusion from the Catechism: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.​

The Scriptures CLEARLY support the idea of citizens arming themselves for personal defense. Therefore we have to disregard the above as merely a personal opinion which is in error.

Here is a classic case of denial my dear friends.

The second paragraph above speaks of right to self defense. No one is arguing against it. Right to self defense can co-exist with banning of guns. But the above posters, perhaps due to dishonesty or actual intellectual impediment would like to believe that the two are synonymous. But it is not the case and does not follow.

Let us be clear what the Church teaches. It taught and will continue to teach that one when attacked may defend one-self and is morally right in doing so. BUT, it does not say that one should go about assuming someone is going to attack and therefore get armed to the tooth. That in fact does not sit well with any Catholic teaching. How can one fulfill Christ’s duty to love in ones daily lives if they are too busy worrying about how to defend themselves?

Unless United States military and law enforcement agencies are a failed organization which cannot defend ones own citizens and maintain the law, NO Citizen, whether it be mother or father, should be concerned about carrying guns.

Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow. The fact that making pornography is IMMORAL is hard to swallow for those who are making pornography. Same goes for guns.

We must not grow in hatred towards such individuals but understand their predicament and continue to pray to Christ to grant them the necessary strength to abandon their ways and learn to surrender to Christ.

In all honesty, this whole problem boils down to people not being able to surrender to God’s providence and protection. They are more concerned with their physical lives and well being than their spiritual well being and think God needs their help to protect them.

God Bless

 

[starshiptrooper]

Let us be clear what the Church teaches. It taught and will continue to teach that one when attacked may defend one-self and is morally right in doing so. BUT, it does not say that one should go about assuming someone is going to attack and therefore get armed to the tooth. That in fact does not sit well with any Catholic teaching. How can one fulfill Christ’s duty to love in ones daily lives if they are too busy worrying about how to defend themselves?

I hope you don’t have locks on the doors to your house, after all, how can you fulfill Christ’s duty to love if you are too busy worrying about defending your property?

Unless United States military and law enforcement agencies are a failed organization which cannot defend ones own citizens and maintain the law, NO Citizen, whether it be mother or father, should be concerned about carrying guns.

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to help us protect our liberties from both the government and thugs.

Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow. The fact that making pornography is IMMORAL is hard to swallow for those who are making pornography. Same goes for guns.

Why do you think guns are evil?

We must not grow in hatred towards such individuals but understand their predicament and continue to pray to Christ to grant them the necessary strength to abandon their ways and learn to surrender to Christ.

In all honesty, this whole problem boils down to people not being able to surrender to God’s providence and protection. They are more concerned with their physical lives and well being than their spiritual well being and think God needs their help to protect them.

God Bless

This might come as a shock to you, but God typically doesn’t protect us by shooting a bolt of lightning at evil people. Instead, God protects us by giving us the means and courage to defend ourselves.

 

[wabrams]

As the above poster has claimed he has had repeated discussion using the above, I have enlarged the section he seems to be missing every time. It is only for those in authority FOR THE common good of things. It is not for individuals.

I hope the followers of this thread can see how much misuse and abuse is being done by those who do not seem to have a clue how to read a Vatican document. When one starts with a need to justify ones own life, everything seems to be supportive of their position.

I would also at this time like to point out how, even if the above did state such a thing, we have the Catechism which highlights “legitimate authority”, the Scriptures which CLEARLY do not support the idea of citizens arming themselves for personal defense. Therefore we have to disregard the above as merely a personal opinion which is in error. So just as these persons like the above poster cherish in undermining documents released against gun possession by the USCCB and the Vatican it-self in other documents, the same could be said about the above document and simply be disregarded.

Therefore in any case, the above poster, who repeatedly seems to use the above has still fail to realize how useless the evidence he has presented. You can almost see the hypocrisy in wanting admit a Vatican released document which has just as much fallibility as the USCCB released document that is against gun possession which they do not want to trust in. It’s a pity really but what can else can one do when ones own life style is under attack.

Let us pray for their difficulties and ask the Holy Spirit to give them the strength to make the tough choices to correct their lives no matter what the cost.

God Bless

Considering the police in the USA have NO Constitutional duty to protect any individual, what would you have us do?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Here is a classic case of denial my dear friends.

The second paragraph above speaks of right to self defense. No one is arguing against it. Right to self defense can co-exist with banning of guns. But the above posters, perhaps due to dishonesty or actual intellectual impediment would like to believe that the two are synonymous. But it is not the case and does not follow.

Let us be clear what the Church teaches. It taught and will continue to teach that one when attacked may defend one-self and is morally right in doing so. BUT, it does not say that one should go about assuming someone is going to attack and therefore get armed to the tooth. That in fact does not sit well with any Catholic teaching. How can one fulfill Christ’s duty to love in ones daily lives if they are too busy worrying about how to defend themselves?

When it comes to “dishonesty” or “intellectual impediment”, you need not look any further than your own posts. When I pointed out that St. Gabriel Possenti’s use of a firearm to defend his village did not disqualify him from being made a saint, you twisted my comments around and argued that he was not made a saint for using a gun – when I never said that in the first place.

When St. Cyril’s comments are presented to you that he also believed that Jesus was referring to actually swords, you dismiss it as it being his own personal opinion but when you quote a Church Father, that interpretation is to be considered to “be TRADITION and on EQUAL footing with Scripture” (your own words). Why is it when you quote Church Fathers who you agree with, their comments are on equal footing with scripture but when the comments of Church Fathers whom you disagree with are quoted to you, those comments are considered to be just their personal opinion? Why? Dishonesty or intellectual impediment?

The second paragraph above speaks of right to self defense. No one is arguing against it. Right to self defense can co-exist with banning of guns. But the above posters, perhaps due to dishonesty or actual intellectual impediment would like to believe that the two are synonymous. But it is not the case and does not follow.

Let us be clear what the Church teaches. It taught and will continue to teach that one when attacked may defend one-self and is morally right in doing so. BUT, it does not say that one should go about assuming someone is going to attack and therefore get armed to the tooth. That in fact does not sit well with any Catholic teaching. How can one fulfill Christ’s duty to love in ones daily lives if they are too busy worrying about how to defend themselves?

One can not say someone has a right, and even a duty, to do something and then deny them the means by which to effectively do that duty. That is being hypocritical. Hypocritical, you know, like saying that the comments of the Church Fathers that you agree with are on equal footing with scripture but the comments of the Church Fathers that you disagree with are merely their own opinion.