'Cardinal Rambo'

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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.
Click to expand...
Clearly the writer has no knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
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...)
 
Wannabe, That is a very cool story. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
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'...
 
"rich collection of rifles and handguns"


Wha-a-at? ! They didn't call it an "arsenal?"
 
230RN said:
"rich collection of rifles and handguns"


Wha-a-at? ! They didn't call it an "arsenal?"
Click to expand...
They even used the correct term for a place guns are stored, "armory," rather than a place where they are made, "arsenal."
 
LMLarsen said:
Didn't Jesus tell His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords if they didn't have any?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 !
 
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.
Click to expand...
Well, not exactly -- because one of them was used, by Peter. And Jesus had to know that would happen.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What nuance do you find in the Gospel that tells us He meant the instruction to procure swords any differently from the other items?
 
Vern Humphrey said:
What nuance do you find in the Gospel that tells us He meant the instruction to procure swords any differently from the other items?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Kali Supreme Court Violates 1st Amendment; Establishes Religion
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
rock jock
R
G
  • Locked
Wash Post: Pitting Gospel Against 12-Gauge In Hyattsville
Replies
18
Views
846
2dogs
2
D
  • Locked
Pitting Gospel Against 12-Gauge In Hyattsville
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
NHBB
N
W
  • Locked
Bloomberg is at it again.
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
foghornl
F
N
  • Locked
Citizens stopping potential mass shootings
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
X-Rap
X-Rap
Back
Top