[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] Leftist CINO Rag: "Disarm Law-Abiding Citizens"

This article appears in the US Catholic magazine, but the blame for this nonsense lies squarely on the shoulders of the so-called "Catholic" News Services, those water-boys for the progressives who need a "Catholic" veneer for their nonsense. It is entitled: Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians.

Taking bits and pieces of various statements made by this and that document, the author tries to extrapolate a case for the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen. She does find a quote, however, from the USCCB stating, "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society."

My reply to that is "So what?" We have put forth the case several times in this blog that the USCCB has no canonical authority whatsoever to determine Church policy. For example, see:

http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2010/09/bishop-vasa-usccb-has-no-intrinsic.html
http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-usccb-anyway.html (note: watch that video on youtube, then watch the other Vortex videos on the USCCB as well)

There does seem to be some Vatican bureaucrat who is parroting progressive lines, and these are riddled (pun intended!) with logical fallacies and departures from common sense. He states that "armed defense is something appropriate for nations, not for all individual citizens in a state where rule of law is effective." He makes an assertion, but gives no proof from moral theology. Second, what keeps "rule of law" effective in a nation? The citizenry, right? What happens when all power is entrusted to governments, governmentst that themselves are controlled by sinful people? We saw what happened in the 1930s when Hitler disarmed his citizenry. Our Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment based on their own first-hand experiences of British occupying armies. If governmental corruption happened then, what on earth makes us think it cannot happen in the future?

It seems that the author is forced to acknowledge the Cathechism's statement on self-defense. She states, "According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, individuals have a right and a duty to protect their own lives when in danger, and someone who "defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow." No doubt this is an extrapolation from sections 2263-2265 from the Catechism; in my opinion, this one is close enough. However, on the right side bar, I do link to the Catechism and invite the readers to examine it directly.

In acknowledging the right and duty of the citizen to defend him/herself from unjust agression, it follows that this citizen has the right to have the means for such defense, means that are adequate to meet the agressions that he/she might face. Many aggressions happen with firearms. Let's be honest; there will be no defense whatsoever if the citizen cannot meet the threat adequately. Indeed, the concern with "lethal blows" is rendered moot if the poor citizen can meet the aggressor with only a baseball bat or kitchen knife.

Here's a doozy of a misstatement of the Catechsim from that article. "According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to "repel aggressors" or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for "those who legitimately hold authority" and have been given the duty of protecting the community." I think she's trying to bastardize Section 2266 of the Catechsim. As I read it, this section seems to be talking of the meting out of punishment as part of due process of law and of threats against the community at large. Ms. Glatz, if you're reading this, you'd better be seated, for that section of the catechism admits the legitimacy of (gasp!) the death penalty!

Catholic News Services is an arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. In light of the above information to which I linked earlier regarding the USCCB (and the liberal infestation therein), I think we can understand the ulterior motives behind some of the CNS publications. Mind you, some of them are probably very sincere in their beliefs, but those beliefs have been impacted by warped education that can hardly be called Catholic. For this latest episode of them publishing progressive slop and calling it "Catholic teaching", I reiterate my call for the dissolution of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Catholic Church's position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?

The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.

But you won't find that statement in a headline or a document subheading. It's almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops' conference and it's mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops' "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice" from November 2000.

"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."

That's followed by a footnote that states: "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society."

That in turn reiterates a line in the bishops' 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse, which called "for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society."

On the world stage, the Vatican has been pushing for decades for limitations not just on conventional weapons of warfare, such as tanks and missiles, but also for stricter limitations on the illegal and legal sale, trade and use of small firearms and weapons, said Tommaso Di Ruzza, the expert on disarmament and arms control at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Di Ruzza told Catholic News Service that the Vatican is one of just a handful of states that would like to see small arms and weapons included in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which would better regulate the flow of conventional arms.

He said while many countries are open to limits on larger weapons systems, most nations aren't interested in regulating small arms even though they "cause more deaths than all other arms (conventional and non-conventional) together."

The Vatican's justice and peace council is working to update its 1994 document, "The International Arms Trade," to further emphasize the importance of enacting concrete controls on handguns and light weapons, he said.

The current document calls on every nation and state "to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe on the rights of anyone."

The more weapons there are in circulation, the more likely terrorists and criminals will get their hands on them, the document said.

The Catholic Church recognizes that "states will need to be armed for reason of legitimate defense," as Pope Benedict XVI said in a message to a Vatican-sponsored disarmament conference in April 2008.

However, armed defense is something appropriate for nations, not for all individual citizens in a state where rule of law is effective, said Di Ruzza.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, individuals have a right and a duty to protect their own lives when in danger, and someone who "defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."

How that "lethal blow" could be licitly wielded is unclear, but the catechism clarifies that repelling the aggressor must be done "with moderation" in order to be "lawful" in the eyes of the church; using "more than necessary violence" would be unlawful, it says.

According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to "repel aggressors" or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for "those who legitimately hold authority" and have been given the duty of protecting the community.

Di Ruzza said that in "a democracy, where there is respect for institutions (of law), the citizen relinquishes his right to revenge onto the state," which, through its law enforcement and courts system, aims to mete out a fair and just punishment.

"There is a sort of natural right to defend the common interest and the common good, and in 1791 (when the United States passed the Second Amendment), my right to have a weapon served the common good because there wasn't an army; the democratic institutions were young and a little fragile, and I could have been useful in a time of war as a soldier," said Di Ruzza.

But once a nation has a functioning army, police force and court system, "do I still serve the common good with my gun or do I put it at even greater danger?" and promote a lawless kind of "street justice where if you steal my car, I shoot you," he asked.

The Vatican's justice and peace council's 1994 document said, "In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists," but, Di Ruzza said, it wasn't lauding the potential of weaponry as much as it was lamenting the existence of arms in an imperfect world.

Nations have a duty, the document said, to reduce if not eliminate the causes of violence.

And as Pope Benedict wrote in his message to the disarmament conference, no reduction or elimination of arms can happen without eliminating violence at its root.

Every person "is called to disarm his own heart and be a peacemaker everywhere," the pope said.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.