The Church's Position On Defense Of Oneself And Family.

[Akalyte]

Im not glorifying anything. im voicing my opinion and standing up for my country and family.  you dont like it stop stalking. 

 

That's not what you're doing. You're just glorifying violence and warfare. I've been watching your site and that is the constant theme. You're not defending anything. You're the quintessential 'Internet tough guy' who also goes to the shooting range.

[Winchester]

This is all a dream, and none of you are real

[ardillacid]

This is all a dream, and none of you are real

 

I don't have to go to work tomorrow? :woot:

[Noel's angel]

I found it to be irrelevant, and I told you why.

 

You 'found it to be irrelevant' because you couldn't come up with a sensible answer to the question. I gave a practical example of a group of Catholics who could a) have fled b) have armed themselves and fought back c) stood their ground peacefully. It is a very relevant example to this discussion.

[Winchester]

I don't have to go to work tomorrow? :woot:

 

Destroying the environment by exploiting labor and residents of small towns probably isn't "work" to you, anyway.

You 'found it to be irrelevant' because you couldn't come up with a sensible answer to the question.

 

Or maybe that's not why.

[KnightofChrist]

You 'found it to be irrelevant' because you couldn't come up with a sensible answer to the question. I gave a practical example of a group of Catholics who could a) have fled b) have armed themselves and fought back c) stood their ground peacefully. It is a very relevant example to this discussion.

As I attempted to explain before, there is no one size fits all answer to your question. The answer could be A, B, or C depending on the conditions that are faced and who faces them. Priests, as priests are not called to fight in wars. So they could lay down their lives to a overwhelming force, and that be the right answer. But invole women, children and men who can fight with the chance of fighting off or escaping invaders or an unjust aggressor and the answer could be different. Edited January 27, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Groo the Wanderer]

"I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK"  :guitar:

[Nihil Obstat]

You 'found it to be irrelevant' because you couldn't come up with a sensible answer to the question. I gave a practical example of a group of Catholics who could a) have fled b) have armed themselves and fought back c) stood their ground peacefully. It is a very relevant example to this discussion.

Incorrect. As I implied with my response, I do not think your scenario properly captures what we are dealing with here. You seem to be assuming that if we are advocating the right to defend oneself, then we must think that those who choose not to do so are somehow remiss. This is a hidden premise in your post, and it is quite false.
As I said, a right to self defense does not necessarily entail an obligation. Therefore, if someone would be right to arm themselves and fight back, they still may very well be entitled not to do so.
The external circumstances will dictate the most prudent course of action in these cases. For instance I would argue that if a man is a young father of three kids and his wife does not work, that he would have an obligation to defend his life were it threatened. On the other hand, while St. Maximilian Kolbe certainly would have been morally justified in using force to escape Auschwitz, his laying down of his life for a stranger was far more meritorious.

Therefore the 'objection' you have presented is simply irrelevant. It does not affect the question we are discussing in any way.

[Akalyte]

This issue is profoundly affecting my faith in the church. I know lombardis words are not binding but many Catholics are taking it that way. More gun control is only going to effect law abiding citizens! It has no effect on criminals and government! That's leaves us and our families vulnerable! Because I believe in my country and freedom I'm being labeled a heretic.

[Nihil Obstat]

This issue is profoundly affecting my faith in the church. I know lombardis words are not binding but many Catholics are taking it that way. More gun control is only going to effect law abiding citizens! It has no effect on criminals and government! That's leaves us and our families vulnerable! Because I believe in my country and freedom I'm being labeled a heretic.

Lombardi has said quite a few things that later had to be corrected or glossed over. Just one out of many examples, Lombardi outright denied that Pope Benedict had, as a child, been a member of the Hitler Youth.

 

Not only is that factually incorrect, it also implies (not proves, but implies) a desire on Lombardi's part to sacrifice truth in favour of a positive political spin. I hope for the sake of his character that this is not the case.

If it was an unintentional error, then it was a rather surprising level of obliviousness or ignorance. It is literally his job to be on top of these things. Excusable for someone else, but not someone in his position. If it was intentional, then he is a spin doctor.

 

I do not know if Federico Lombardi is culpable personally for the strange things he has communicated  in the past from his position as director of the Press Office, but in my personal opinion he has let us down and caused misunderstandings far too many times.

[Akalyte]

i see, ive noticed a brand of catholics out there, even vatican catholics who support obama. Based on "well the vatican agrees with this, so the vatican agrees with obama" I had the understanding that Catholics were not suppose to support Obama? I'm truly saddened.

[Jesus_lol]

i see, ive noticed a brand of catholics out there, even vatican catholics who support obama. Based on "well the vatican agrees with this, so the vatican agrees with obama" I had the understanding that Catholics were not suppose to support Obama? I'm truly saddened.

 

 

Last I checked, Catholics were not under a strict rule to not support Obama at anything.I would hardly imagine that if Obama came up with a plan to limit or do away with capital punishment, or something else, that catholics would be barred from agreeing with him.

 

(not that catholics are required to dislike or like capital punishment, it was just an example.

[Basilisa Marie]

This issue is profoundly affecting my faith in the church. I know lombardis words are not binding but many Catholics are taking it that way. More gun control is only going to effect law abiding citizens! It has no effect on criminals and government! That's leaves us and our families vulnerable! Because I believe in my country and freedom I'm being labeled a heretic.

 

Thing is, it seems like us Catholics are allowed to have a diversity of opinions when it comes to the nitty-gritty of gun control in our country.  You're not a bad Catholic for being anti-gun control, but I'm not a bad Catholic for being pro-gun control, either.  I think it's important to highlight the distinction between what the Church teaches and what we feel is right on these issues.  

[KnightofChrist]

Thing is, it seems like us Catholics are allowed to have a diversity of opinions when it comes to the nitty-gritty of gun control in our country.  You're not a bad Catholic for being anti-gun control, but I'm not a bad Catholic for being pro-gun control, either.  I think it's important to highlight the distinction between what the Church teaches and what we feel is right on these issues.  

 

Keeping in mind however, one does not have the right to violate, limit, or take away someone else's rights or property.  

[Winchester]

Thing is, it seems like us Catholics are allowed to have a diversity of opinions when it comes to the nitty-gritty of gun control in our country.  You're not a bad Catholic for being anti-gun control, but I'm not a bad Catholic for being pro-gun control, either.  I think it's important to highlight the distinction between what the Church teaches and what we feel is right on these issues.  

 

When you advocate that people be subject to violence for non-violent acts, then yes, you are being a bad Catholic (in the sense of rejecting moral law).