Vatican & Catholic Bishops Support of Gun Ban Policies Endanger Innocent

Islamic Terrorist
Islamic Terrorist
Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder
Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder

Titusville, FL - -(Ammoland.com)- “Gun-grabbing policies promoted by Vatican and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) officials endanger victims of violent crime and terrorism,” gun rights expert John M. Snyder said here today.

“Such policies should be renounced and reversed,” he added.

“There are many news reports of murderous Islamist terrorist attacks on Catholics and others in various parts of the world, especially in the Middle East,” Snyder noted. “These victims and potential victims of terrorism need firearms to be able to defend themselves against such attacks.

“Given this reality of the world in which we live, Vatican support for small arms trade limitation is unrealistic, to say the least. Terrorist groups determined to kill Catholics would not abide by such a limitation. The limitation would affect adversely the victims’ ability to get the guns they need to defend their families.”

Snyder said, “The real effect of Vatican policy is to undermine the victim’s right to self-defense and strengthen the position of those who persecute Catholics. The Vatican should back away from this misguided policy. Instead, it should encourage the arming of the innocent for self-defense.

“There is a moral obligation to fight evil. ‘The man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one,’ said Our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke: 22:36).”

Snyder noted, “Here in the United States, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Mike Rogers (R-MI), Chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence, and others have warned that terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) likely will come to our shores and attempt to replicate their brand of Middle East terrorism here in America.”

“Besides, there always are murderous villains here in our country,” he continued. “It is ridiculous for the USCCB to maintain its policy calling for the criminalization of private handgun possession in the United States. American citizens need, buy and use handguns to protect themselves and others from murderous criminal violence. Is USCCB trying to undermine the traditional, individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms? Is USCCB trying to help criminals victimize the innocent by disarming the innocent?

“USCCB officials should deep-six the organization’s gun-grabbing policy. It should replace it with support for the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend life and the right to life.”

GunRightsPolicies.org
John M. Snyder
Manager
Telum Associates, LLC
Arlington, VA
202-239-8005

About John Snyder:
Named the Gun Dean by Human Events, “the senior rights activist in Washington” by Shotgun News, a “champion of the right to self-defense” by The Washington Times, and “dean of gun lobbyists” by The Washington Post and The New York Times, John M. Snyder has spent 45 years as a proponent of the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms as a National Rifle Association editor, public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, and founder of www.GunRightsPolicies.org.

A former Jesuit seminarian, Snyder is founder/manager of Telum Associates, LL.C., founder/chairman of the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc., a director of Council for America, and serves on the boards of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens. He is also the author of the book Gun Saint. Visit: www.GunRightsPolicies.org

  • 4 thoughts on “Vatican & Catholic Bishops Support of Gun Ban Policies Endanger Innocent

    1. I really dislike it when the liberals take things out of context and even more so when the conservative side does so. In the Word, it DOES NOT state ““There is a moral obligation to fight evil. ‘The man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one,’ said Our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke: 22:36).”” This is miswritten and out of context.

      Instead, “5 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

      “Nothing,” they answered.

      36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

      Further, ” 9 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.”

      51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.”

      Our Lord is a God of peace and love. Yes, we should stand up to evil and do have a moral obligation to stand against those who commit evil against us and others. However, I do not believe out Lord meant physical weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but I and other Christians believe He only meant weapons of spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves.

      I enjoy my weapons and probably have too many. However, my true weapon when fighting evil is prayer and a strong believe that my Lord will return and clean house. I am waiting for Him.

    2. No wonder the Cat-licks couldn’t keep the Anglican Church under it control. Patriot fighters in the War for Independence were about 80% Anglican (who changed the name of their church to Episcopal later in the war).
      With the Sword of the Word on my tongue and a brace of pistols on my pulpit!

    3. Catholic catechism on self-defense: “Legitimate defense

      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.

      2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

      2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

      If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

      Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”68 ”

      The good King of england wanted to divorce his wife and wanted Sir Thomas Moore to change the rules to satisfy this whim. As a result Sir Thomas Moore was killed. The State then started their own religion (the church of England later known as Anglican to accommodate his wish) the state then started killing Catholics as it was against the law to be catholic. Accurate history is a precious thing.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>