Question about armed groups protecting catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mar044
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A little of topic but your on the ignore list,your comments are so patronizing, Josiah is my friend and your treatment of the those that listen have too much of the devil speaking , irish you shame me, oh and correct is "bless you " ( i shant be back for your reprasal mmmm if only) irish ssssshhhhhh 👍
 
Except that the bible does not say that Jesus said that. Nowhere does in the bible does Jesus say “if someone is trying to kill you, you may not use force to try to stop them.” The bible said that Jesus says something which you think means what you say, and which some of us think means something else. But what you, or I, think it means is secondary to what the Church says it means. And the Church says that nothing Jesus said means that we cannot kill in self defense or defense of others.
Yes - HERE is the pertinent section in the CCC
Granted, from what I understand, the Church does recognize that in some cases it may be better not to use such force in self defense even if it costs us our lives. But it does not claim that this is always true, or that blanket pacifism is the way to go.
Actually - I would suggest that the Church prefers non-violent, non-lethal, methods to resist.
There was a recent thread here about a Cathedral in South America which was defended against pro-abortion marchers by men and women who blocked the entrance with linked arms and prayer. They absorbed an enormous amount of punishment in the form of taunts, physical contact - shoving and profane “kissing/licking” etc as well as spray paint and such.
By their example, they showed greater strength than the aggressor and illustrated where the base evil existed.

This is such a complex issue and it is very important that we listen to the Church…Who has made NO statement or intimation that she would approve groups such as is suggested here. I believe she has good reason for that.

Peace
James
 
Really?

That’s the Spanish Civil War, of course, Franco killed Protestant ministers but still. I think by the end of the war the Nationalists had killed about 1500 religious and priests. Stalin killed priests, the Soviet block countries killed priests, I think in Yugoslavia there were hundreds of Jesuits killed.

Plenty of priests have been murdered for being priests in the last 100 years. Use Google for more info.
WOW. This is very surprising to me. I had no idea. Aside from hearing about the vandalism of a Jewish temple once in a great while I have never heard of priests, nuns, or clergy of any other religion being targets of violence because of their status. (I’m aware there were religious wars fought a few hundred years ago or so, but never heard until now anything at all. I don’t watch the news or read newspapers any longer (too much negativity that I don’t want in my brain, in particular the reports on TV news regarding dealths, etc).

Thanks,
Bill
 
Question

if a group of Catholics created a group that protects churches with firearms etc is that harassy or a grounds for excommunications? I was thinking about it the other night about all the attacks and killings of nuns so on and burning of churches and wondered what would happen if people actually had a group that protected places of worship against attack,

reading up there has been groups in the past…unfortunately they are based on hate, and racisist views and have been excommunicated. but how about groups like the knights templar that protected pilgrums on the road in the holy land from killings that happened then?

the only known group i know of is the swiss guard and that is just for the Vatican.

thanks.
That is happening right now in northern Iraq where Christians have been forced to flee. Armed citizens protect monasteries that welcome run away Christians. I saw that in a documentary shown by the Italian state television. The documentary also showed interviews with the local bishops that discussed the need for such protection.
 
Yes - HERE is the pertinent section in the CCC

Actually - I would suggest that the Church prefers non-violent, non-lethal, methods to resist.
There was a recent thread here about a Cathedral in South America which was defended against pro-abortion marchers by men and women who blocked the entrance with linked arms and prayer. They absorbed an enormous amount of punishment in the form of taunts, physical contact - shoving and profane “kissing/licking” etc as well as spray paint and such.
By their example, they showed greater strength than the aggressor and illustrated where the base evil existed.

This is such a complex issue and it is very important that we listen to the Church…Who has made NO statement or intimation that she would approve groups such as is suggested here. I believe she has good reason for that.

Peace
James
I think that the reason the Church does not teach anything one way or another is that it is a prudential decision on the part of those who are in the situation. In one situation, people may decide that the situation is such that prayer and linked arms is appropriate. One thing about passive resistance like that in a nation whose culture is as close to western as is Latin America’s is that people, even fanatical communists or whatever, are reluctant to attack those who are unarmed and not offering violence back. That is why what Ghandi did in India worked: because the British were, rightly, reluctant to attack unarmed, non-violent protestors.

However, those influenced by radical Islamic thinking have *no problem *attacking the unarmed. They are burning down churches in Nigeria with people in them and the government is doing nothing to protect the Christians. In that type of situation, people might decide that using guns is the best way to protect the people, *and the Church does not say anything against this. *

naturally the Church prefers non-violent means of protection; unfortunately this requires a certain amount of cooperation on the part of the attackers, doesn’t it? And the Church teaches that we have a *right *to self-defense, and in no way qualifies that.
 
I think that the reason the Church does not teach anything one way or another is that it is a prudential decision on the part of those who are in the situation. In one situation, people may decide that the situation is such that prayer and linked arms is appropriate. One thing about passive resistance like that in a nation whose culture is as close to western as is Latin America’s is that people, even fanatical communists or whatever, are reluctant to attack those who are unarmed and not offering violence back. That is why what Ghandi did in India worked: because the British were, rightly, reluctant to attack unarmed, non-violent protestors.

However, those influenced by radical Islamic thinking have *no problem *attacking the unarmed. They are burning down churches in Nigeria with people in them and the government is doing nothing to protect the Christians. In that type of situation, people might decide that using guns is the best way to protect the people, *and the Church does not say anything against this. *

naturally the Church prefers non-violent means of protection; unfortunately this requires a certain amount of cooperation on the part of the attackers, doesn’t it? And the Church teaches that we have a *right *to self-defense, and in no way qualifies that.
👍👍👍
 
I think that the reason the Church does not teach anything one way or another is that it is a prudential decision on the part of those who are in the situation. In one situation, people may decide that the situation is such that prayer and linked arms is appropriate. One thing about passive resistance like that in a nation whose culture is as close to western as is Latin America’s is that people, even fanatical communists or whatever, are reluctant to attack those who are unarmed and not offering violence back. That is why what Ghandi did in India worked: because the British were, rightly, reluctant to attack unarmed, non-violent protestors.

However, those influenced by radical Islamic thinking have *no problem *attacking the unarmed. They are burning down churches in Nigeria with people in them and the government is doing nothing to protect the Christians. In that type of situation, people might decide that using guns is the best way to protect the people, *and the Church does not say anything against this. *

naturally the Church prefers non-violent means of protection; unfortunately this requires a certain amount of cooperation on the part of the attackers, doesn’t it? And the Church teaches that we have a *right *to self-defense, and in no way qualifies that.
You make a very good and valid comparison here.
I think that one very important thing today is how difficult it is for groups to isolate news. With the electronic abilities available, such atrocities are sent global very quickly…This works against the oppressors and even more so when they are killing obviously unarmed people.
That said…and once it is clearly established who the aggressor is…then some sort of militant defense seems to be the only resort.

And Yet - -

I still worry about violent, even lethal defense turning into aggressive offensive revenge…In other words, by taking up the tools and tactics of the enemy (satan) one becomes infected by the disease (hatred).

It is a very difficult thing…

Peace
James
 
You make a very good and valid comparison here.
I think that one very important thing today is how difficult it is for groups to isolate news. With the electronic abilities available, such atrocities are sent global very quickly…This works against the oppressors and even more so when they are killing obviously unarmed people.
That said…and once it is clearly established who the aggressor is…then some sort of militant defense seems to be the only resort.

And Yet - -

I still worry about violent, even lethal defense turning into aggressive offensive revenge…In other words, by taking up the tools and tactics of the enemy (satan) one becomes infected by the disease (hatred).

It is a very difficult thing…

Peace
James
The assumption is that war is necessarily Satan’s tool, but in the case of a just war this is not so. The angels fought a literal war against the Demons, but they were still Gods angels.
 
The assumption is that war is necessarily Satan’s tool, but in the case of a just war this is not so. The angels fought a literal war against the Demons, but they were still Gods angels.
Actually I don’t say that war is satan’s tool. War is the result of his tools…hatred, and violence, greed and envy, these things lead to the evil of war. These are Satan’s tools…tools that can very easily infect the weaker in faith so that they too easily move from legitimate defense to illegitimate aggression…

God’s Angels remained so by not becoming infected with the disease that brought down Lucifer and his minions.

Peace
James
 
Question

if a group of Catholics created a group that protects churches with firearms etc is that harassy or a grounds for excommunications? I was thinking about it the other night about all the attacks and killings of nuns so on and burning of churches and wondered what would happen if people actually had a group that protected places of worship against attack,

reading up there has been groups in the past…unfortunately they are based on hate, and racisist views and have been excommunicated. but how about groups like the knights templar that protected pilgrums on the road in the holy land from killings that happened then?

the only known group i know of is the swiss guard and that is just for the Vatican.

thanks.
Perhaps one of the few persons in the Catholic sphere of the world capable or organizing, training, and logistically pulling off the kind of regional or international security operations you’re speaking of might be a convert to the Catholic Church that founded the private military company Blackwater.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ackwater.jpg/180px-Erik_prince_blackwater.jpg
Erik Dean Prince (born June 6, 1969) is a former U.S. Navy SEAL notable for founding the world’s largest private military company, Blackwater Worldwide, in 1997. He served as CEO until 2009 and later as chairman until Blackwater was sold in 2010 to a group of investors. Prince currently lives in United Arab Emirates
Prince describes himself as a libertarian and practicing Roman Catholic.[24]
I believe Erik Prince has discussed the idea (his idea) of purchasing a aircraft carrier and manning it and supplying it with the ability to conduct rapid NGO (Non-governmental organization) intervention in areas of Africa that require rapid humanitarian and security responses.

But I see a number of hurdles for organizing and carrying out the kind of security project your entertaining thoughts about. Namely financing. Logistics cold be a huge problem as well if enemy combatants conducted neo-siege warfare in say… a place like Nigeria.

Differing local laws might pose a problem. Internal police or political corruption could cause a significant problem given a working relation with both would be required. Language barriers could pose a small problem as well.

Might you consider something more along the lines of the NOI’s (Nation of Islams) Fruit of Islam? Is there nationally famous security force deployed without arms and trained in martial arts hand-to-hand combat. Usually being hired to conduct security in urban settings in black communities where crime may be high.

I see you have a background in criminology. Might I suggest considering a new organizational model for a contemporary Catholic charge in a world were war is dominated by rich developed nations that can disproportionately afford the prerequisite technology.

The experienced police detective or federal agent is a more mature charge than the brainwashed, low-ranked, enlisted military troop. The social pathologies in the United States of America alone offers the room or abstract social space for a battalion or more of privately trained and financed charges in death investigation, missing persons investigation, forensic pathology, and urban security and urban combat. Potentially, like the Secret Service or FBI, such personnel could also be temporarily deployed to form security exclusion areas around churches or other built-up targets internationally, where diplomatically their presence can be negotiated and their invitation temporarily welcomed.

Such international security operations might draw training and protocols from the U.S. Secret Service and FBI as well as from the elite Brazilian force BOPE (perhaps the premier urban combat force of our time).

But bullets and food cost money. You also must have emergency extraction plans, capabilities, and the ability to rapidly provide reinforcement where necessary. That’s all a severe challenge.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalh%C3%A3o_de_Opera%C3%A7%C3%B5es_Policiais_Especiais
Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais (Portuguese for Special Policial Operations Battalion), mostly known by its acronym BOPE, is a special forces unit of the Military Police of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil.
Due to the nature of crime in favelas, BOPE units have extensive experience in urban warfare as well as progression in confined and restricted environments. It also utilizes equipment deemed more powerful than traditional civilian law enforcement.
I was trained in the basics (not the advanced tactics and equipment) of CQB (Close Quarter Battle) in the U.S. military. I marvel at the tactical success of BOPE in the very tight urban environment they operate in. They’ve even sent representative to the U.S. to provide training to a U.S. police force. Some of their members are MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fighters. All of them train in Brazilian Jujitsu.
 
You might consider employing the Fila Brasileiro along on security details as additional security measures. The breed eventually was used to hunt down run-away slaves in Brazil.

The Spanish Conquistadors came to the America with mastiffs too that used as war dogs to attack Amerindians.

My understanding is that in Brazil the favelados (The male Brazilian living in favelas) love to have Fils Brasileiros like Black-Americans in the inner-cities love to have Pit Bulls.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fila_Brasileiro
The Fila Brasileiro (Portuguese pronunciation: ˈfilɐ ˌbraziˈlejɾu]) is a large working breed of dog developed in Brazil.
The Fila Brasileiro is believed to have been evolved from a number of breeds,the Mastiff, the Bulldog, Bloodhound & The Rafeiro. The Fila Brasileiro breed was bred and raised primarily on large plantations and cattle farms where they were originated.
They were taught to chase down jaguars, cattle, and other animals, as well as runaway slaves. The dogs would grab the slave or animals by the neck and hold them until the farmer arrived. This instinct can be observed among puppies when they are playing.
In the United Kingdom,[1] Israel, Denmark,[2] Norway,[3] Malta[4] and Cyprus[5] it is illegal to own any of these dogs without specific exemption from a court. The Fila is a restricted breed in Australia, the states of Qld, N.S.W., Victoria, S.A and W.A the Fila is a restricted or proscribed breed. Imports are also prohibited. They are automatically classified as a dangerous dog in New Zealand and Trinidad & Tobago,[6] meaning they cannot be imported and males must be neutered.
 
Thank you for this information; I didn’t know all that background :o
 
You make a very good and valid comparison here.
I think that one very important thing today is how difficult it is for groups to isolate news. With the electronic abilities available, such atrocities are sent global very quickly…This works against the oppressors and even more so when they are killing obviously unarmed people.
That said…and once it is clearly established who the aggressor is…then some sort of militant defense seems to be the only resort.

And Yet - -

I still worry about violent, even lethal defense turning into aggressive offensive revenge…In other words, by taking up the tools and tactics of the enemy (satan) one becomes infected by the disease (hatred).

It is a very difficult thing…

Peace
James
Yes, and this is something that very much concerns the Church as well, and She warns us against it.
 
Perhaps one of the few persons in the Catholic sphere of the world capable or organizing, training, and logistically pulling off the kind of regional or international security operations you’re speaking of might be a convert to the Catholic Church that founded the private military company Blackwater.
Wow, he’s a convert to Catholicism! Amazing!
…Might you consider something more along the lines of the NOI’s (Nation of Islams) Fruit of Islam? Is there nationally famous security force deployed without arms and trained in martial arts hand-to-hand combat. Usually being hired to conduct security in urban settings in black communities where crime may be high.
I see you have a background in criminology. Might I suggest considering a new organizational model for a contemporary Catholic charge in a world were war is dominated by rich developed nations that can disproportionately afford the prerequisite technology…
Here I have been trying to keep my identity a secret, and you let it out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top