'Cardinal Rambo'


PDA






wannabeagunsmith
April 13, 2012, 05:20 PM
While the USCCB pushed for gun control as does the liberal catholics many are quick to believe that the church I belong to is an anti-gun orginization. Not so.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iqtW2M822Do8fC_5-D1IiN2y0TWg?docId=CNG.370569ca78de7c929bbfb49125a5efa2.7d1


Just thought I would share this, made me feel good about life these days and let's not turn this into a religion discussion cause it would get closed then.

If you enjoyed reading about "'Cardinal Rambo'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
April 13, 2012, 06:44 PM
I'm tired of seeing the Anti-Media calling firearms a tool for violence:

Calcagno said he kept the weapons in a locked armoury at his home in Savona but that did not stop press reports from making ironic digs at the unusual hobby for a cardinal of the Catholic Church, which advocates non-violence

Just because the man owns firearms, does not mean he condones violence. I really with they'd make it a felony to post such stories. It's just like saying I misspelled words are caused by pencils.

parsimonious_instead
April 13, 2012, 06:48 PM
A nutcase speeding and weaving down the Sawmill River Parkway is far more likely to kill himself and others, than a Cardinal, or anyone with an arsenal of firearms and ammunition, but his hobby of fast cars would be considered "non-violent."

Manson
April 13, 2012, 06:51 PM
Wannabe, That is a very cool story. Thanks for sharing.

Tinpig
April 13, 2012, 07:22 PM
Good for the Cardinal for standing up for his rights.

But as you say, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) does not share his views:

As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.

...we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society.

...effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society."


http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

Vern Humphrey
April 13, 2012, 09:20 PM
Calcagno said he kept the weapons in a locked armoury at his home in Savona but that did not stop press reports from making ironic digs at the unusual hobby for a cardinal of the Catholic Church, which advocates non-violence.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:


If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Clearly the writer has no knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

TurtlePhish
April 13, 2012, 09:23 PM
I'm glad to see public figures standing up for the 2A. I really hope to see more of this.

Liberty1776
April 13, 2012, 09:50 PM
when I was a kid in the 50's, our parish priest would hang his deer in the tree by the rectory, which was between the school and the church. Never warped any of us... (benefit of growing up in a small farming community of 325 people...)

wannabeagunsmith
April 13, 2012, 11:05 PM
Wannabe, That is a very cool story. Thanks for sharing.

Sure, no problem :) Yeah, the Church condones self-defense something that the liberal side of it does not want to accept.

cool about your deer-hunting pastor :)

LMLarsen
April 14, 2012, 01:07 PM
Didn't Jesus tell His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords if they didn't have any? And doesn't the story of Sodom & Gomorrah advocate armed resistance to evil?

Just sayin'...

230RN
April 14, 2012, 05:31 PM
"rich collection of rifles and handguns"


Wha-a-at? ! They didn't call it an "arsenal?"

threefeathers
April 15, 2012, 02:24 AM
excellent, thank you.

GoWolfpack
April 15, 2012, 06:11 AM
"rich collection of rifles and handguns"


Wha-a-at? ! They didn't call it an "arsenal?"
They even used the correct term for a place guns are stored, "armory," rather than a place where they are made, "arsenal."

Jamie B
April 15, 2012, 11:45 AM
@Vern Humphrey-

Excellent information!
I also have researched this very information.
Thanks for sharing!

Sam Cade
April 16, 2012, 01:32 AM
Didn't Jesus tell His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords if they didn't have any?

Yes, but they only managed to come up with two between the lot of them.

The entire purpose of having the swords was so that they could conspicuously NOT be used.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

blarby
April 16, 2012, 07:57 AM
Very good. Now we just need to find a way to get him to redirect the papacy as a whole. Uphill fight ? Mebbe. Worthwhile, definitely.

All groups will have members of different stripes. This group is no exception. Glad to see that rational thought is as pervasive as.........

Thanks for the link !

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2012, 09:56 AM
Yes, but they only managed to come up with two between the lot of them.

The entire purpose of having the swords was so that they could conspicuously NOT be used.
Well, not exactly -- because one of them was used, by Peter. And Jesus had to know that would happen.

Sam Cade
April 16, 2012, 12:24 PM
Well, not exactly -- because one of them was used, by Peter.
... and Jesus tells him to slow his roll.

So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"


Anyway, Luke 22:36 isn't about self defense.

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2012, 12:31 PM
Then what is Luke 22,36 about?

Jesus tells them one who has a money bag should take it with him -- surely He meant it to be used as a money bag.

He tells them one who has a sack should take it with him -- surely He meant it to be used as a sack.

He tells them one who has sandals should take them -- surely He meant them to be used as sandals.

And the Apostles took him literally -- they showed him two swords.

Ryanxia
April 16, 2012, 12:40 PM
That's interesting. Leave it to the media though to muddy things up.

Sam Cade
April 16, 2012, 01:08 PM
Then what is Luke 22,36 about?
.

It's about submission to gods will and prophetic fulfillment.

They buy swords so that they can choose NOT to use them. That is why Jesus says that two swords was enough.

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2012, 05:37 PM
It's about submission to gods will and prophetic fulfillment.

They buy swords so that they can choose NOT to use them. That is why Jesus says that two swords was enough.
Interesting -- but that's not what it says.

I repeat:
Jesus tells them one who has a money bag should take it with him -- surely He meant it to be used as a money bag.

He tells them one who has a sack should take it with him -- surely He meant it to be used as a sack.

He tells them one who has sandals should take them -- surely He meant them to be used as sandals.
What nuance do you find in the Gospel that tells us He meant the instruction to procure swords any differently from the other items?

Sam Cade
April 16, 2012, 06:26 PM
What nuance do you find in the Gospel that tells us He meant the instruction to procure swords any differently from the other items?

They did as instructed and got the weapons.
Only two, presumably all they could afford.

When one of those swords was actually USED:

"Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"
...and then the big J heals the wound given by the sword blow.

In Matthew, Simon Peter gets further scolding about the use of force, even in the defense of others.


Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword Matthew 26:52




So they obviously weren't intended for defense of Jesus, and two swords would be woefully inadequate for the individual defense of a dozen men.
It's obviously a symbolic gesture, Jesus illustrating his peaceful nature even though he has armed men under his command.

TurtlePhish
April 16, 2012, 06:40 PM
Guys, come on, keep it on topic. Let's not get this locked.

o Unforgiven o
April 16, 2012, 07:00 PM
Why are you guys arguing about swords? This thread is about a Cardinal with a passion for guns.

JustinJ
April 16, 2012, 07:31 PM
Guys, come on, keep it on topic. Let's not get this locked.

Why are you guys arguing about swords? This thread is about a Cardinal with a passion for guns.

They are debating in a civil manner so what's the problem? Wether or not Jesus condones the use of weapons seems very relevant in a gun forum and thread about a church's position on firearms. Personally i find the topic interesting. I do however think the "jesus is okay with swords arguement" is missing the forest for a tree. While that story has some ambiguity other passages about loving one's enemy, turning the cheeck, and blessed are the peacemakers seem fairly straight forward.

TurtlePhish
April 16, 2012, 08:04 PM
They are debating in a civil manner so what's the problem? Wether or not Jesus condones the use of weapons seems very relevant in a gun forum and thread about a church's position on firearms. Personally i find the topic interesting. I do however think the "jesus is okay with swords arguement" is missing the forest for a tree. While that story has some ambiguity other passages about loving one's enemy, turning the cheeck, and blessed are the peacemakers seem fairly straight forward.


I'm okay with the debate and am curious as well, but this thread WAS started to discuss specifically the cardinal in the article and peoples' opinion on that, not their opinion on a Bible passage. Another thread would be great, though.

If you enjoyed reading about "'Cardinal Rambo'" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!