Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:59 AM Apr 2013

Meet the ‘Catholic NRA’

Aaron Schrank | Apr 10, 2013

(RNS) As the Senate takes up a heated debate over gun control and background checks, Catholic bishops have used the months since the Newtown school massacre to push gun control in email blasts and Senate Judiciary Committee testimony. But among the Catholic faithful, not everyone supports gun control measures.

Call them the NRA Catholics.

John M. Snyder, a lifelong Catholic and former seminarian, is one. Snyder isn’t thrilled to be opposing the bishops, but he sees little choice. An outspoken gun rights activist for decades — once the chief Washington lobbyist for the Citizens Committee For the Right to Keep and Bear Arms — he doesn’t see any discord between his faith and his activism.

“Advocating for the rights of people to defend themselves with the appropriate weapons is part and parcel of my Catholicism,” said Snyder, of Washington. “I do feel a great loyalty to the church and the bishops and it pains me to see them behaving so foolishly.”

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/04/10/meet-the-catholic-nra/

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Meet the ‘Catholic NRA’ (Original Post) rug Apr 2013 OP
Gun nuts for Jesus! Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2013 #1
What Cathechism is he reading? rug Apr 2013 #2
It seems to me to be implicit in the Catechism. herbkunz Apr 2013 #5
That references the Summa Theologica. rug Apr 2013 #6
Our local priest in my home town was an avid hunter. Pterodactyl Apr 2013 #3
Nothing wrong with that.although I bet he's not a Franciscan. rug Apr 2013 #4
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
2. What Cathechism is he reading?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:43 AM
Apr 2013

“Advocating for the rights of people to defend themselves with the appropriate weapons is part and parcel of my Catholicism,”

 

herbkunz

(12 posts)
5. It seems to me to be implicit in the Catechism.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:45 AM
Apr 2013

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:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
6. That references the Summa Theologica.
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:47 AM
Apr 2013
Article 7. Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?

Objection 1. It would seem that nobody may lawfully kill a man in self-defense. For Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): "I do not agree with the opinion that one may kill a man lest one be killed by him; unless one be a soldier, exercise a public office, so that one does it not for oneself but for others, having the power to do so, provided it be in keeping with one's person." Now he who kills a man in self-defense, kills him lest he be killed by him. Therefore this would seem to be unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, he says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "How are they free from sin in sight of Divine providence, who are guilty of taking a man's life for the sake of these contemptible things?" Now among contemptible things he reckons "those which men may forfeit unwillingly," as appears from the context (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): and the chief of these is the life of the body. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to take another's life for the sake of the life of his own body.

Objection 3. Further, Pope Nicolas [Nicolas I, Dist. 1, can. De his clericis] says in the Decretals: "Concerning the clerics about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have killed a pagan in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher degree; know that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any man under any circumstances whatever." Now clerics and laymen are alike bound to observe the moral precepts. Therefore neither is it lawful for laymen to kill anyone in self-defense.

Objection 4. Further, murder is a more grievous sin than fornication or adultery. Now nobody may lawfully commit simple fornication or adultery or any other mortal sin in order to save his own life; since the spiritual life is to be preferred to the life of the body. Therefore no man may lawfully take another's life in self-defense in order to save his own life.

Objection 5. Further, if the tree be evil, so is the fruit, according to Matthew 7:17. Now self-defense itself seems to be unlawful, according to Romans 12:19: "Not defending [Douay: 'revenging'] yourselves, my dearly beloved." Therefore its result, which is the slaying of a man, is also unlawful.

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.

I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted from Augustine refer to the case when one man intends to kill another to save himself from death. The passage quoted in the Second Objection is to be understood in the same sense. Hence he says pointedly, "for the sake of these things," whereby he indicates the intention. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply to Objection 3. Irregularity results from the act though sinless of taking a man's life, as appears in the case of a judge who justly condemns a man to death. For this reason a cleric, though he kill a man in self-defense, is irregular, albeit he intends not to kill him, but to defend himself.

Reply to Objection 4. The act of fornication or adultery is not necessarily directed to the preservation of one's own life, as is the act whence sometimes results the taking of a man's life.

Reply to Objection 5. The defense forbidden in this passage is that which comes from revengeful spite. Hence a gloss says: "Not defending yourselves--that is, not striking your enemy back."


http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

Snyder runs the St. Gabriel Possenti Society http://www.possentisociety.com/ . Before that he ran the Citizens Committee For the Right to Keep and Bear Arms http://www.ccrkba.org/ which is associated with the Second Amendment Foundation http://www.saf.org/ .

Though I may be overstating it, this suggests to me that his overarching concern is access to weapons, not Christian charity.

The American bishops' statement on gun control legislation is fairly definitive of the Church's position on gun regulation.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/upload/USCCB-Senate-Testimony-Proposals-to-Reduce-Gun-Violence-2013.pdf

While it is true that self-defense is, and has been for centuries, recognized by the RCC as a legitimate right, the debates about automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the size of clips, background checks and the rest go far beyond a moral or religious notion of self-defense.

The Catholic Chuch holds a wide range of views on peace, war and self-defense, http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2184 as one example, but in this case, I suspect Mr. Snyder is driven by an agenda beyond being Catholic.

Not to be uncharitable, but I give his group as much credence as I do these: http://www.republicancatholics.blogspot.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/Catholics-for-Romney/309626799085392

Welcome to DU!
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
4. Nothing wrong with that.although I bet he's not a Franciscan.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:25 AM
Apr 2013

It's this "appropriate weapons" to use against people that's the problem.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity»Meet the ‘Catholic NRA’