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

A Muslim Beheads An American - Will US Bishops Finally Learn Some Lessons?

Yesterday in Oklahoma, a recently-fired worker named Alton Nolen went on a murderous spree.  He had just been fired from Vaughn Foods and broke out his knife.  He beheaded one Vaughan Foods employee and was stabbing another when he was shot by the CEO and owner of Vaughan Foods, Mark Vaughan.  Co-workers said that Nolen had been trying to convert them to Islam.  Some accounts to read are Jihadwatch and WesternJournalism.com.  On Facebook he's known as Jah'Keem Yisrael.  Take a look at that page before it's taken down.  His firing had been occasioned by his insistence that women should be stoned for certain offenses, a common belief of Muslims.  I'd suspect his supervisors feared he could turn violent.  If so, their fears were realized.

Besides the general alert that beheading is now occurring on American soil, I think there are some real lessons, particularly for our US bishops.

1. Moore, OK is about a 20-minute drive from Oklahoma City, maybe 11 miles in distance.  Nolen was said to have lived in Oklahoma City.  What happened in Oklahoma City this past Sunday?  The black mass - that is, worship of demons.  Can anyone doubt now that malevolent spiritual forces were given more free play by those participants in that demonic debacle?  When people flirt with evil, they open all sorts of doors that shouldn't be opened.
2. If you didn't hear about the black mass until just now (or after it happened), that shows dereliction of duty on the parts of the US bishops.  With the obvious exception of OK's Archbishop Coakley, I do not recall hearing of one bishop who sounded the call for his flock to offer prayers and sacrifices.  All of them should have called their flocks to spiritual battle.  They didn't.  Why not?
3. Nolen was stopped because Mark Vaughan exercised his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.  Had he not done so, that second woman would have died and there probably would have been more victims.  Under no circumstances should citizens be deprived of their abilities to defend themselves.  Our bishops should be ashamed of themselves for playing the lackey to governmental progressives in trying to strip us of our arms.
4. The US bishops must cease their inane attempts to portray Islam to be morally equivalent to Christianity.  Yesterday's incident is just the latest evidence that the bishops' pipe dream could not be further from the truth.  That 66-page piece of poppycock that the USCCB wrote would be considered an utter joke if it wasn't based on dangerous naivete of the bishops (unless some of them are closet imams themselves).

We need to oppose our bishops loudly whenever and wherever they play the puppets of the progressives.

Why Does Pope Francis Put Arms Manufacturing On Same Moral Plane As Human Trafficking??

Here is what he said today during his expose of the Spiritual Gifts, quoted from Zenit: noting traffickers of persons and manufacturers of arms, as those who will have difficulty going to the Lord since “all the fruit of his corruption has corrupted his heart.”  The Pontiff said manufacturers of arms "manufacture death." "They are merchants of death and make death merchandise.

It makes no sense.  Human trafficking and arms manufacturing can in no way be called moral equivalents.  The former is always intrinsically evil as it is the deliberate enslavement of other human beings.  Not so the manufacturing of arms, unless a particular manufacturer has in mind a concrete nefarious purpose for the arms that he/she is manufacturing.  Arms are morally neutral in and of themselves.  Depending on the purpose and disposition of their users, arms can bring about great evil - or great good.

This past Monday a father defended his daughter from two thugs by firing his weapon.  He killed one thug, wounded another and saved his daughter's life.  Will the maker of that father's gun "have difficulty going to the Lord"?  I cannot answer for the state of that individual's soul, but I'd wager that this gun would make no contribution to any difficulty whatsoever.

Now watch this report of an armed man who came to the aid of a beating victim by drawing his weapon.  Rather than being called a user of "death merchandise" he is being hailed as a Good Samaritan.  Again, the availability and use of arms helped save innocent life.

It would be so helpful if the Pope stopped mishmashing progressive talking points with attempts at catechesis.

Liberal Tyranny Increases - We Must Stand Our Ground

There are some who cannot understand why people such as myself who abhor abortion are also beholden to the Second Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms.  After all, they reason, guns snuff out life just like abortion does, right?  Well, no.

Abortion is the murder of babies in their mothers' wombs.  Murder is defined in Catholic moral theology as "the deliberate taking of innocent human life".  The Fifth Commandment is most accurately translated as "Thou shalt not murder".

The Second Amendment is the guarantee of the right of every person to defend themselves and to have the means adequate to do so.  It is a necessary adjunct to the right to life.  If a person is attacked and takes the life of the aggressor while defending him/herself, that taking of life is justified.  It does not fit the definition of "murder".

The Founding Fathers were quite aware that an out-of-bounds government might well assume aggressive stances towards its citizens, and that these citizens had the right to defend themselves against even governmental aggressors.

Now here's the rub.  The Bill of Rights acknowledges certain human rights exist because God, not government, bestowed them.  They state plainly that government must acknowledge its role as guardian of those rights.  However, when abortion became liberalized by governmental fiat, government usurped the place of God in societal life.  Government at that time started to show a tyrannical face.  If government was not going to protect innocent life in the womb, no other innocent life would be safe from its claws.

Here's a "case in point".  Remember Bill Elliott?  He's the cancer patient who criticized Obamacare after he was told that he'd have to pay premiums almost 10 times what he was paying, owing to his cancer.  He said he'd take the penalty and "let nature take its course".  After the media attention, his broker found him a new policy.  Well, guess what?  Both Elliott and the broker who assisted him received notices of (guess!) impending IRS audits!  In the words of Gomer Pyle, "su-praz, su-praz, su-praz!"

If we really want a glimpse of horrors to come, we just need to look at some events in countries that are a little further along in the plunge down the socialism sewer.  From England's Telegraph we read of some social service tyrant who thought some lady might be an unfit mother.  They seized the woman and forcibly performed a cesarean section on her and took her baby from her.  This could have happened in Red China, but at least they didn't kill the baby.  I urge you to read it, and consider that some hgh-and-mighty bureaucrat could pull the same barbarian stunt here.

Literally Signing Away Their Rights!

Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying that "those who surrender essential liberties to obtain temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."  Many of the products of progressive education and modern culture have allowed themselves to be rendered "sheeple", for lack of a better word.  They are buying the codswallop that surrendering their Second Amendment rights will secure non-violence in society.  Of course all that will do is make them even more vulnerable to violence and even tyranny from a government that no longer has constitutional restraints upon it.

The video below that just came to my attention is purportedly of a man telling folks that they should sign away the First Amendment to "get behind the president".  I've no reason to assume this is a fake.  That said, we see even more sheeple willing to be fleeced and ultimately slaughtered.  It's way past time to wake up!

Gun-Wielding Private Citizen Saves Lives

This incident occurred yesterday in Salt Lake City, Utah.  It was on local news there.  Did it make it onto any national media?  You can bet your bottom dollar that if it had been the perpetrator with a gun that the Second-Amendment bashers (including silly prelates) would have been giving speeches hither and yon and renewing their calls for gun bans.  But no, the silence is deafening.  To their immense credit, the local police praise the yet-unnamed citizen for his quick-thinking, initiative and preparedness.  If indeed the Second-Amendment bashers had their way, many more people at that store would have been injured before the police could respond.

Gun Control Is Dissent From Church Teaching

In the March/April 2013 issue of the Defend Life newsletter an article of mine appears on page 17 (note: below the jump break I'll reproduce the unedited article for therein are some links to referential material.)  The main thrust of the article is to outline why I strongly believe that the underlying philosophy behind the current push for "gun control" is actually anti-life.  Despite what the "seamless-garment" groupies incessantly chant, the movement to restrict access to the tools of self defense constitutes significant dissent from Catholic Church teaching.

I won't rehash my article; you can read it for yourselves.  I'll also put below the jump break a montage of clips where progressive (aka Democratic) politicians make no bones about their ambitions to make a mockery of our Second Amendment rights.

Piers Morgan Threatens To Deport Himself

Piers Morgan, the British-born CNN host, is threatening to deport himself back to the UK after he evoked well-placed anger over his recent stupid statements.  After he made clear his opinions that good people aren't deserving of the right to defend themselves, he then stated his opinion that the Bible "should be amended" to allow for "gay marriage".

As he put it so arrogantly, "the Bible and the Constitution were well-intentioned, but they are basically inherently flawed."  By what imperious standard does he determine that God's word is "flawed"?  I've got news for Morgan; the Bible will be around long after he's a memory on the face of this planet!

As you read the first link, you'll see that Morgan is quite skilled at conducting veritable temper tantrums.  The only thing that I might change about the article is the title.  I'd change the word "threatens" to "promises".  However, I sadly suspect that this will be a promise that will be broken, just as Alec Baldwin broke his similar promise many years ago.

USCCB Misses The Mark On Sandy Hook Shootings

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops today issued a statement (of sorts) on the Sandy Hook shootings and what they think are the answers.  Well, I don't know if the bishops themselves penned it (although they affixed their names to it) because it has the smell of progressive agendas all over it.

First (after receiving "talking points" from the puppet masters) they launch into gun control.  They opine the intent to protect one's loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible.  Let me illustrate the lack of logic by applying it to another filial duty, to wit:  the intent to feed one's loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, food is too easily accessible.  The right to self-defense is a necessary component to the right to life itself - but that right is denied when one is deprived of the means to exercising that right.

A number of sensible articles have been written about the Second Amendment.  I would suggest that the USCCB puppet masters read them, but I suspect they full well know the truth and are doing their utmost to keep the truth from the Catholic in the pews.  Here's one on the gun-control culture.  Here's another that addresses the real fundamental cause of violence (and not just violence involving guns): America's Problem Is a Contempt for Life.

The USCCB piece ends with 5 suggestions that they claim will address violence.  Notice that 4 out of 5 have to do with gun control - that is, confiscation of guns from everybody including the law-abiding.  I've no doubt that the USCCB puppet-masters have been given their talking points from the Democrat money-bags and are obediently doing their bidding, couching their progressivism in a faux-katholyc veneer.

Most telling, of course, is the lack of mention of the complete disrespect of life and morality as discussed by Mr. Bannister's article.  Yes the USCCB made some perfunctory remarks about violence in entertainment, but that's it.  There was no reference to Mother Teresa's wise words linking abortion and general societal violence.  For that matter, there was no mention at all of the most brutal murders of 3000 tiny babies every day.  Those murders, of course, bring in buckets of money to Democrat coffers and they're accomplished with surgical weapons that cannot be utilized against any tyrannical thug that may crash down your door.

Yet another reason why I pray that the Vatican abolishes the USCCB.

British Pol: "Consider Mandatory Abortion For Disabled"

For now the United Kingdom Independence Party has suspended one of their members when he called for compulsory killing of all disabled babies.  Geoffrey Clark also wrote that women carrying children with suspected Down syndrome, spina bifida and other problems should be forced to have abortions to reduce health care costs.  Ladies and gentlemen, not too long ago Sarah Palin and others were mocked for issuing their warning about "death panels".  Well, now we will be facing our own "Geoffrey Clarks" and they may well already be in the White House.

Until England's remaining decent voices sounded in indignation, Clark was on his way to Parliament.  This is a man who has the mindset of Adolf Hitler and Chairman Mao all rolled into one - and he's not alone.  Many of the minds who crafted Obamacare share his demented mindset.

Isn't it interesting how, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, that the progressives are rattling their sabers for "gun control"?  The Founding Fathers of this nation were wise to that type of tyrant.  They realized that the citizenry must not only be able to defend themselves from "rank and file" thugs, but also a government run amok.  We're headed in that direction if a Geoffrey Clark ever makes himself manifest in the USA.  Yes, he was stopped in England before he made it to Parliament.  Still, isn't it disturbing that he got as far along in his political career as he did?

This is the "brave new world" that is staring us in the face.  Will we, as Catholics, have the fortitude to stare it down?

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)