Interpretation of this Vatican Document

[MaxTH]

Read what 2321 says …

The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

… Legitimate defense is a grave duty for WHOEVER is responsible for the lives of others.

The answer as to who bears the responsibility is one of those times when a one question actually answers another.
“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

 

[momor]

The answer as to who bears the responsibility is one of those times when a one question actually answers another.
"Am I my brother’s keeper?"

That is certainly a valid point. Let me ask you an off topic question to see if that attitude pervades all of your life. Do you support universal medical coverage in this country?

 

[ddarko]

BTW, the USCCB has no magisterial authority either.

According to Cardinal Ratzinger:

I am happy with this conclusion.

In final, **WE CANT TAKE BOTH DOCUMENTS AS SUPPORT FOR ANY MATTER WITH RESPECT TO TEACHING.
**

We have to argue about these issues using actual teachings. My gripe is against people like Sir Knight who think that the Vatican document has infallibility written over it.

God Bless

 

[runningdude]

I think thats not correct.

Because the USCCB states the following:-

So I don’t think that is a document applied to illegal trading only, no? Or why speak of possible exceptions like the section bolded above?

Also, regarding the OP Vatican document, that seems to actually apply to State level since that document seems to be targeted at, specifically says “CONFERENCE ON ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN ALL ITS ASPECTS”. It even speaks of UN conventions during war etc which do not really get bought up when speaking of individual rights.

So is it not possible that the correct way of resolving the conflict between the two statements is

1. Interpreting Vatican document as applicable to states
2. USCCB as applying to civilians (since it explicitly states that state authority is the possible exception)

To me, this seems the most reasonable. You might have missed the bolded section above from the USCCB perhaps? Because it sure doesn’t seem like it speaks on illicit trade in the USCCB document by that statement.

God Bless

I do believe I miss read the USCCB quote. They do seem to be in favor of banning firearms for the general public.

I think I agree with others that quote you offered is a largely a political opinion of the Holy See, of which the USCCB would be free to disagree. “Reconciliation” might not be necessary, as the two opinions are separate.

The other thing to consider is that the Vatican’s policy must be applicable worldwide. In some parts of the world, firearms really are necessary, or at least not excessive. I traveled Haiti a couple years ago (before the earthquake), and nearly every home has an armed guard.

So maybe consider that the USCCB believes the US is safe enough for an arms ban (to avoid unnecessary deaths). Where as the Vatican worldwide policy is to leave open the option for firearms in areas where the danger of violence is greater.

 

[otjm]

I do believe I miss read the USCCB quote. They do seem to be in favor of banning firearms for the general public.

I think I agree with others that quote you offered is a largely a political opinion of the Holy See, of which the USCCB would be free to disagree. “Reconciliation” might not be necessary, as the two opinions are separate.

The other thing to consider is that the Vatican’s policy must be applicable worldwide. In some parts of the world, firearms really are necessary, or at least not excessive. I traveled Haiti a couple years ago (before the earthquake), and nearly every home has an armed guard.

So maybe consider that the USCCB believes the US is safe enough for an arms ban (to avoid unnecessary deaths). Where as the Vatican worldwide policy is to leave open the option for firearms in areas where the danger of violence is greater.

and the people who wrote the USCCB document fail to take into account a phenomenal amount of information. This is not the place to argue either the 2nd Amendment or those in opposition to it; suffice it to say that if you read between the lines of my prior posts, it should be clear who is doing the writing for the bishops - or allegedly for the bishops.

 

[runningdude]

and the people who wrote the USCCB document fail to take into account a phenomenal amount of information. This is not the place to argue either the 2nd Amendment or those in opposition to it; suffice it to say that if you read between the lines of my prior posts, it should be clear who is doing the writing for the bishops - or allegedly for the bishops.

I’m not arguing one way or another (pro-gun or anti-gun), just trying to interpret random quotes from two long boring documents regarding church politics .

It doesn’t really matter who is writing the USCCB document; I merely stated that the document’s opinion did not have to agree with opinion in the Vatican document. The opinion are written by two different entities, and deal with non-theological matter, so the two documents could very well disagree.

 

[Newbie2]

Use of the amount of force necessary to avoid being harmed. This can be from walking away from a situation to using lethal force to ensure your safety and the safety of your family.

That sort of begs the question, as an aside, that one be able to anticipate the amount of force necessary, no? In other words, if one lives in a “bad” neighborhood, does that mean that one can/should anticipate needing the appropriate amount of force of potential lethality.

But to address the original question, the Vatican has to address matters on a worldwide and more of a “generic” worldwide basis. Methinks we in the US have an americanocentric view of the application of such prinicples, whether that is correct or incorrect.

 

[KathleenElsie]

That sort of begs the question, as an aside, that one be able to anticipate the amount of force necessary, no? In other words, if one lives in a “bad” neighborhood, does that mean that one can/should anticipate needing the appropriate amount of force of potential lethality.

But to address the original question, the Vatican has to address matters on a worldwide and more of a “generic” worldwide basis. Methinks we in the US have an americanocentric view of the application of such prinicples, whether that is correct or incorrect.

And we must be able to assess what we need. People in every country, county, city and town must assess their own needs. I believe this is what the Vatican had in mind. Not a one size fits all.
My family lives where it could well take the police (our police is only the State Troopers) two hours under normal circumstances. We are rural and there have been home invasions in our area. (back roads and dirt roads)
Some people live in well patroled areas and a 911 call is answered in 3 to four minutes. They don’t live in a high crime area. Maybe someone lives in a gated community.
Where our small parish is located is HIGH crime. It is in the city about 18 miles from our home. It is not uncommon to leave Liturgy at night and see police cars with flashing lights at the local business in the area. There is a large public housing complex about three miles down the road.

 

[runningdude]

I am afraid I must bow out this thread. I’m given up web forums for Lent, and the holy season of healing and penance is soon upon us. Take care all!