The Arms Of A Catholic

In the Dec 12th edition of the Anchor Team, Michael Hichborn was joined by Richard Barrett.  They discussed Barrett's book, "The Armed Catholic", and the theology supporting a person's right to defend themselves, even to the point of using lethal force if need be.  They also touched on the related topics of capital punishment and the Just War Theory, but spent most of the time discussing the right of the individual to defend him or her self from an unjust aggressor.  Indeed, the right to self-defense comes from God as part of the right to life itself.

Such a right includes the right to obtain means of self-defense that are adequate to address the threats that one might face.  Today that includes firearms.  Both Hichborn and Barrett agreed that a right to self-defense might actually be an obligation, particularly if the person being attacked has other persons who are dependent on him or her.  Perhaps the aggressor is threatening those in his charge.  That person would be morally obliged to defend the person under his charge.  Think of a parent defending his children.  In a family, that obligation would fall primarily on the father's shoulders, but the mother might have to take up that mantle if her husband is away or otherwise unable to take action.

So now that raises some interesting questions.  Are Catholic men willing to address that aspect of their responsibilities, particularly if they have families under their care?  Do they accept that there are evil people out there who may harm their families if given the opportunity?  Have they swallowed the "guns are scary!" kool-aide?  Our society has focused a lot on a man's ability to provide for his family, not so much on his ability to protect his family.  When I was a young child, that wasn't so much an issue, for most of the fathers were World War II veterans.  They knew how to fight and how to handle firearms.  The makeup of adults in general has degraded quite a bit since then.  Now we, men and women, are timid and lazy.  But I digress.

They discussed the US bishops' misguided attempts to inflict "gun control" on peaceful citizens. Hichborn and Barrett seemed to imply that the bishops are simply misguided by hippie mindsets or are trying to lick the boots of progressive sugar-daddies.  I for one think the US bishops' motives are a bit more inimical than that.  Think of my post that immediately precedes this one.  The bishops are at least sympathetic to socialism.  Could it be that they intend men to be emasculated, so that socialism finds a weakened resistance?  Do they want the adults to be timid and lazy, as mentioned in the previous paragraph?  Yes, that question is rhetorical.  Please watch the video.

Resume