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.

PS - I thank Pewsitter for the tip.