The Church's position on self-defense:
An initial point of reference is found in the Gospel of Luke, where our Lord indicates the legitimacy of the right to self-defense, telling the disciples, “Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36).
In a modern context, the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the right to use lethal force in self-defense, including on behalf of others, when the use of this force is moderate—i.e., when it is not practical to use less force (CCC 2264-2265).
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.
The Catechism does not specify the means by which one may use lethal force in self-defense, but this may be inferred: If you are in a situation where the only effective means you have of defending your life (or that of another) is a gun, then you may use it.
As in so many other cases, your unreasoning hatred of Catholics has deluded you into believing foolish misconceptions about them.
The Catholic article I quoted from a Catholic news service itself, addressed the info you quoted above. It therefore addresses or answers nothing I presented to you or asked you. Your false accusation of hate against Catholics creating my misconception concerning their true stance on private gun ownership, is once again built upon a false premise and narrative which exists in your own mind alone. I quoted a Catholic article from a Catholic news agency, you nitwit. How does that equate to personal misconceptions based upon Catholic hate? It was a public article written by a Catholic, published by a Catholic news agency. Get a grip man. Quit creating false narratives or premise for questions and or issues you have no good answers for.
The link and article you provided either did not know about the statements the Catholic published and written article I quoted referenced, or deliberately chose to ignore them. It danced around the issue of one of the official statements it did quote, concerning strict enforcement of strict gun laws. Here is the quote -
The only statement from a body connected with the Holy See that I have been able to obtain (and it took some doing to get it, because it is not on the Vatican website) is found in The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, a 1994 document by the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace (PCJP). Under the heading “Furnishing Arms to Groups That Are Not States,” the document says:
It is urgent to find an effective way to stop the flow of arms to terrorist and criminal groups. An indispensible measure would be for each State to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe upon the rights of anyone (4:8).
This document does not address the question of handguns and small arms (rifles, etc.) except under the rubric of keeping them out of the hands of terrorists and criminal organizations. It thus does not engage the broader self-defense question.
The quoted statement is regarding “Furnishing Arms to Groups That Are Not States". Individual citizens compose a group of people who are not themselves the State. Imposing strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms to citizens which are not the state therefore, would be imposing the same upon them. This would and does most certainly infringe upon the rights of all citizens. The article I quoted clearly pointed out, that the Vatican believes in disarming all citizens of developed nations or states which have a standing military and police force. The article you quoted dances around the issues just like you do. Which is why you referenced it, no doubt.
Amo quoted from Barb - As others have already stated, you either have serious reader comprehension issues, or ignore what others have stated altogether to create a dialogue which exists within your own mind alone.
I suppose if you loved God more than you hate Catholics, you wouldn't have those comprehension issues. The Catechism is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. You just don't want it to be so. We all see that but there it is. In case you were also misled about that...
More self created false narrative on your part. Same old Catholic hate crap, because I disagree with the leaders of your churches stance on handguns. You’re not just like the left, you are the left. Any and all who disagree with you, therefore also hate you, and therefore also must be wrong. You create your own false narratives, which you then use to avoid answering questions which would reveal your faulty position.
The comprehension issue which you have reversed in your own mind as well, was in relation to you not me. You must pretend not to hear or read certain questions, or reverse them in this case, in order to avoid actually answering them. As others on these boards have and are pointing out.
Amo quoted by Barb - Police crossing a line is not an issue when serving tyrannical government. They already crossed the line by deciding to serve tyrannical government, or remaining in its service when it becomes one.
So Danish police "crossed the line" when they and Danish Nazis tipped off Danish Jews about deportations, allowing most of them to escape? I don't think so. Did the centurian whom Jesus praised for his great faith,"cross the line" by serving in Caesar's army? C’mon.
Now above you are creating a false narrative of the exception to the rules, defining the rules. C’mon. Just because you talk to people like they are idiots, doesn’t mean they are. As if Hitler and all the other tyrannical leaders throughout history did all they did without overwhelming military and police support. That idea in and of itself is idiotic. Are you really suggesting such? What, was it OK that all the Jews had to escape their homes because some people warned them to do so? Is this what you are suggesting? Just exactly what are you trying to say, in your above reference? Please do expound.
Amo quoted by Barb - you are avoiding the subject of tyrannical government because as a Catholic, you belong to an institution which has historically supported many of the same,
You actually think Luther, Cromwell, and Calvin committed those killings (or in Luther's case advised others to do it) when they were Roman Catholics?
More false Barb created narrative. I said nothing about Luther, Calvin, or Cromwell. You inserted them to avoid the topic of your own denominations sins. You will not find me supporting Christians killing anyone for disagreeing with them. I guess this is why you make such up in your own mind, and then present it here as my thoughts or expression to distract and misdirect the conversation. No one else’s sins, can excuse the sins of the Catholic church or any other for that matter.
As this response is already long enough, I will finish the rest of my response in my next post. Barb has opted to quote a previous Pope’s words from 56 years ago, in an attempt to convey what I perceive as a false narrative concerning the Vaticans real political views and intentions. It will therefore be necessary to use the words other Pope’s, Doctrinal Notes, and writings throughout history to reveal these hidden as it were intentions. This will no doubt be somewhat lengthy.