Papal gun "control"
"Pope ... urges crackdown
on spread of handguns in cities"
The
Associated Press April 12, 2008
"I renew my appeal so that nations
reduce their military spending for arms and seriously consider the idea of
creating a worldwide fund for peaceful development projects for peoples,"
Benedict said.....
"Huge material and human resources employed for military
expenditures and for armaments are in fact subtracted from development plans for
peoples, especially those poorest and neediest of aid," Benedict said.
The pontiff also said he was urging "every effort
against the proliferation of light and small-caliber weapons, which fuel local
wars and urban violence, and unfortunately kill too many people every day in all
the world."
"After the May 13, 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II by Mehmet Ali Agca, a much stronger emphasis has been made on the Swiss Guards' functional, non-ceremonial roles. This has included enhanced training in unarmed combat and small arms. The small arms are the same as those used in the Swiss army" (Wikipedia, s..v. "Swiss Guard")
It is very often observed that the rock stars and politicians and other such members of the "intelligentsia" who clamor most loudly for disarming the honest man, are never very far from the well armed body-guard or two who accompany them always and everywhere. Yet, one would have hoped for better from the man who employs the red-plumed private army of Swiss Guardsmen. One might have hoped for better from the Pope who grew up under the Nazi regime, and who must certainly be aware of the disarmament laws of all of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.
Yes, public and private armaments "could have been sold for much and given to the poor," but the Pope's reasoning about the right to keep and bear arms is no sharper than the economic "wisdom" which often emanates from the Vatican. Self defense is an inherent right of both nations and individuals. It is not the army or the gun which causes violence, but rather the evil people who misuse one or the other. Leaving one's self or one's nation without the means of defense against armed aggressors will, in no way, benefit the poor. Nor will the poor be served by additional foreign aid transfers, which characteristically benefit those in charge, often to the detriment of those who have little or nothing.
The Swiss Guard notwithstanding, the Holy Father's military clout is nonexistent, and even Opus Dei seems not to have been able to work the monetary magic needed to make the Vatican a world economic power. The Pope's ability to persuade policy makers is limited to moral suasion and public opinion. Why not use this power where it will do some good? It would be far more beneficial for the the Pope to denounce those who wage pre-emptive wars of conquest, those who bomb non-combatants, and those who torture, than it would be to call for the disarmament of their prospective victims. Likewise, it would be far better for His Holiness to demand sure and swift punishment of local criminals, than to deprive their victims of any means of defense—one needs only to look at the crime statistics in "gun controlled" places to appreciate that even the possibility of an armed victim leads to respect for the law and private property. Concern for aggressor states and criminals—to the detriment of law abiding peoples—is the fruit of the same Cultural Marxism which has turned so much of our society upside-down.
Self defense is a right, not a privilege granted by the Church or the state. Even in the best of good faith, the police cannot be everywhere. Often the police are crime scene historians, arriving only after the violence has been done, filling out reports for the statistics or to justify an insurance claim. The individual must be his own first line of defense—not to mention the defense of those whom he loves and is duty bound to protect..
in XTO,
Fr. Brusca
Send him mail
This article can be viewed full screen at
http://www.rosarychurch.net/comment/papal_guns.html
From The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Self-Defense"
Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to
employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his
property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the
more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may
be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding
the right of self-defense. The teaching may be summarized as follows:
I. Defense of Life and Person
Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust
aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take
the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of
life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed
however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary
to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help
or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the
unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely
planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is
not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may,
out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be
bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state
or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same
conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his
life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may
also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural
affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others.
A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his
wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious
loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for
that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to
them.
II. Defense of Property
It is lawful to defend
one's material goods even at the expense of the aggressor's life; for
neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even
though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a
man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however,
we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to
appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who
snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use
force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of
the aggressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in
order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of
his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not
in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in
the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered
from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his
spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has
carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover
them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists
with violence he may be killed in self-defense.
