America And Guns

[elizabeth09]

Argee, but some just gave up, just to say alive.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1257894113' post='1999881']
I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute pacifism."
[/quote]
Absolute pacificism, which was condemned by the Church in the Anabaptist controversies of the 16th century, would say that it is never legitimate to use force to defend oneself or the innocent. In fact, a man commits a sin of omission if he fails to defend those who have been placed in his care.

A person may forgo self-defense in certain cases, but he may never simply offer up the lives of those who are in his charge.

[picchick]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1257881921' post='1999679']
'Slappo'
We know their lives and the virtues they exhibited. Not all saints were on the same level spiritually, except, all aligned their wills with God's.
I never said I reached this level of spirituality. I spoke about others who have, like Gandhi.
Please, I never suggested that I'm holier than anyone, especially Joan of Arc.

Remember one thing, she never took up arms, she inspired her country men to fight against their oppressors, who BTW, were enemies of Rome.

Also, when Joan was arrested and imprisoned, she was shown the torture devices that would be used on her, if she didn't recant her statements about the locutions she had been receiving. She became fearful and said she would. However, that night in her cell, she had a dream where the [b]Blessed Mother[/b] appeared to her and told her she was wrong to fear the torture devices and that she must stay true. She did, and of course was burned at the stake.

Never heard of him, but I'll check him out.

Hope he isn't just a legend, ala St Christopher.

Jim
[/quote]

Just a correction: it was not the Blessed Mother. It was St. Catherine and St. Margaret.

Oh and wikipedia is not a good source when looking up Saints or anything for that matter. I use it from time to time for reference when I need a general idea to something but when you are entering such controversial territory, it is not a good idea to use wikipedia.

From EWTN Expert Answers:

[b][quote]St. Christopher[/b] was dropped from the Universal Calendar in 1969; however, veneraton is still permitted on a local level. Hence, it is still permitted to wear Christopher medals, etc. [/quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=306683&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=St%2E+Christopher&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=7&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]Link[/url]

[quote][b]St. Christopher
Question from on 06-27-2002:[/b] I was recently told that [b]St. Christopher[/b] is no longer considered to be a saint. Is this true? what happened? Thanks. [b]Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 06-28-2002:[/b] No, for the thousandth time, IT IS NOT TRUE. The mandatory celebration of [b]St. Christopher[/b]'s feast day was removed from the universal Church calendar because we are not sure of all the historical facts about his life. But there has been no ban on prayers and devotions to him, and the Church has not denied its existence. Please help clear up this all too widespread misunderstanding and confusion. - Dr. Carroll [/quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=310515&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=St%2E+Christopher&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=13&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]My link[/url]
[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1257890411' post='1999831']
How many people did Jesus injure or kill when he turned over the tables?


The problem is, we are quick to use violence, and to tell you the truth, I think the Just War Doctrine has been abused over the centuries.

Jim
[/quote]

When has anyone here been quick to use violence? From what I read, everyone is pretty sane and ready to use violence onlywhen necessary.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1257884887' post='1999740']
Tell that to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
[/quote]

Or Britain (already beaten once by Afghanis, who are working on a second) the United State and Canada in Afghanistan.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 10, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1257894228' post='1999885']
There were many martyrs in the early Church who were martyred along with their families. They could have used violence in self-defense, but they didn't: not for themselves, and not for their families.
[/quote]
If a proper defense could have been mounted, and a man failed to attempt it, he would commit a sin. If the situation, as in the case of the ancient martyrs, did not allow for a defense, there is no culpability for the failure to act in defense of one's family.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm siding firmly with Apotheoun on this one.

[Apotheoun]

If a man broke into my house and tried to kill me and my mother, I would do all that was in my power to defend my mother, and if I failed to act in that manner, I would deserve the punishment of hell.

[OraProMe]

This is from an Australian comedy show called "The Chasers War on Everything".

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuGqWwUJ64Y[/media]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1257894463' post='1999889']
Absolute pacificism, which was condemned by the Church in the Anabaptist controversies of the 16th century, would say that it is never legitimate to use force to defend oneself or the innocent. In fact, a man commits a sin of omission if he fails to defend those who have been placed in his care.

A person may forgo self-defense in certain cases, but he may never simply offer up the lives of those who are in his charge.
[/quote]
I believe that the Gospel is an eschatological vocation and is absolutely non-violent.

I believe that violence is a matter of this world. Insofar as we have recourse to violence, it must be in the name of this world, and not in the name of (or in support/defense of) the Gospel.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1257894592' post='1999893']
If a proper defense could have been mounted, and a man failed to attempt it, he would commit a sin. If the situation, as in the case of the ancient martyrs, did not allow for a defense, there is no culpability for the failure to act in defense of one's family.
[/quote]
We will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that the early martyrs went to their martyrdom because they lacked swords. They knew that they risked martyrdom, and if they wanted to, they could have organized weapons beforehand. They did not choose to do so.

I do not believe that Christians must always act precisely as the early martyrs acted. But I believe that the witness of the early martyrs is the Gospel ideal.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1257895578' post='1999912']
I believe that the Gospel is an eschatological vocation and is absolutely non-violent.[/quote]
The gospel is non-violent, but self-defense is a right and often a duty. Moreover, the defense of the innocent is also a duty. The Church has always rejected pacificism. That is why she has allowed Christians to serve in the military, and why she has allowed Christians to work in the justice system, which may require the use of capital punishment.

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1257895578' post='1999912']
I believe that violence is a matter of this world. Insofar as we have recourse to violence, it must be in the name of this world, and not in the name of (or in support/defense of) the Gospel.[/quote]
If Muslims declared a jihad against the Christians in the area where I live, I would have no qualms in defending myself and my fellow Christians from Mujahidin attacks.

[Era Might]

[quote]If Muslims declared a jihad against the Christians in the area where I live, I would have no qualms in defending myself and my fellow Christians from Mujahidin attacks.
[/quote]
I would not defend myself in such a situation. I would choose to go to my martyrdom.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1257894010' post='1999878']
I do not believe that the Apostles would have allowed those in their care to be harmed without attempting to defend them, which means that they would have had to use force in defense of the innocent. To fail to do that is a sin of omission.[/quote]
Do you believe that the Apostles lacked access to swords? I cannot agree that the Apostles were unable to defend themselves and their fellow Christians. They could have gotten swords and fought their persecutors. But they chose not to.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1257895897' post='1999919']
The gospel is non-violent, but self-defense is a right and often a duty.[/quote]
Violent self-defense may sometimes be a right and a duty, but I do not believe that it is a right or duty of the Gospel. Violence is a matter of this world, whereas the Gospel is not of this world; we must not confuse this world with the Gospel. That's my main point.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1257896150' post='1999926']
I would not defend myself in such a situation. I would choose to go to my martyrdom.
[/quote]
As long as you have no one who depends upon you, there is no sin in your choice.