America And Guns

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='10 November 2009 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1257883457' post='1999709']
+J.M.J.+
seriously? you've never heard of him? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img] he was the saint who started the whole thing of consecrating yourself to Mary?
[url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-louis-marie-grignion-de-montfort/"]http://saints.sqpn.c...on-de-montfort/[/url]

Profile

Born poor. Studied in Paris, France, and ordained in 1700. While a seminarian he delighted in researching the writings of Church Fathers, Doctors and Saints as they related to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom he was singularly devoted.

Under Mary's inspiration, he founded the Congregation of the Daughters of Divine Wisdom, a religious institute of women devoted to the care of the desititute. During this work, he began his apostolate of preaching the Rosary and authentic Marian devotion. He preached so forcefully and effectively against the errors of Jansenism that he was expelled from several dioceses in France. In Rome Pope Clement XI conferred on him the title and authority of Missionary Apostolic, which enabled him to continue his apostolate after returning to France. He preached Mary everywhere and to everyone. A member of the Third Order of Saint Dominic, Saint Louis was one of the greatest apostles of the Rosary in his day, and by means his miraculously inspiring book, The Secret of the Rosary, he is still so today; the most common manner of reciting the Rosary is the method that originated with Saint Louis's preaching. In 1715, he founded a missionary band known as the Company of Mary.

His greatest contribution to the Church and world is Total Consecration to the Blessed Virgin. He propagated this in his day by preaching and after his own death by his other famous book True Devotion to Mary. Consecration to Mary is for Saint Louis the perfect manner of renewing one's baptismal promises. His spirituality has been espoused by millions, especially Pope John Paul II, who has consecrated not only himself but every place he has visited as pope. In True Devotion to Mary, Saint Louis prophesied that the army of souls consecrated to Mary will be Her instrument in defeating the Devil and his Antichrist. As Satan gains power in the world, so much more shall the new Eve triumph over him and crush his head.

The cause for his declaration as a Doctor of the Church is now being pursued.
[/quote]


Where does it say he used non-violence to overcome oppression for his people?


Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1257883440' post='1999708']
Well he's the example you keep returning to. Why him, and not any Catholic saint who lived a life of non-violence? There are hundreds of them, maybe thousands.
[/quote]


I return to him because he is an example of how non-violence can be used successfuly.

Non-violence and pacifism are two different things.


However, I do have a saint that just came to mind, but many people don't know about him.

Saint Isaac Jogues.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1257883816' post='1999717']
I return to him because he is an example of how non-violence can be used successfuly.

Non-violence and pacifism are two different things.


However, I do have a saint that just came to mind, but many people don't know about him.

Saint Isaac Jogues.

Jim
[/quote]
My original point though, is whether or not it matters if it's successful or not?

[Varg]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='09 November 2009 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1257783575' post='1998787']
Because our country was founded on the principle that the government should be subservient to the people. Our right to bear arms ensures that we will always be able to enforce our ideal of government serving teh people instead of the other way around. In other words, the idea is that the government exists at the will of the people.
[/quote]The government has control of the army. A couple of Average Joes with Glocks aren't going to be able to overthrow the government.

[Varg]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='08 November 2009 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1257726863' post='1998501']
Because using the broadsword to defend kith and kin is a bit outdated.
[/quote]
If I could choose to have one weapon in my house it would be a big shiny broadsword with the words "This blade spills your blood for Odin" written on it in Viking runes.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 04:13 PM' timestamp='1257884013' post='1999720']
My original point though, is whether or not it matters if it's successful or not?
[/quote]


In the point I was making at the time, success was the purpose of using Gandhi as an example in the use of non-violence.


Jim

Edited November 10, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Varg' date='10 November 2009 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1257884217' post='1999726']
The government has control of the army. A couple of Average Joes with Glocks aren't going to be able to overthrow the government.
[/quote]


No, but get a populace in support of guerrilla fighters and they will.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1257884616' post='1999734']
In the point I was making at the time, success was the purpose of using Gandhi as an example in the use of non-violence.


Jim
[/quote]
No, you asserted that it was more 'spiritually mature'. If it is, then does his success or failure make a difference?

[Varg]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1257884742' post='1999737']
No, but get a populace in support of guerrilla fighters and they will.

Jim
[/quote]No, they won't. It's unlikely that guerrillas can beat trained soldiers.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='10 November 2009 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1257884820' post='1999739']
No, they won't. It's unlikely that guerrillas can beat trained soldiers.
[/quote]
Tell that to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

[Varg]

You expect the Soiet Union to do ANYTHING right?

Edited November 10, 2009 by Varg

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1257883255' post='1999704']
You say that "we are not obliged to give up our lives or the lives of others." And I agree. The gospel is not an "obligation," it is an invitation. But the Gospel does invite us to non-violence and martyrdom. The Gospel is not a philosophy for this world. It is an eschatological vocation.

Christ never advocates violence, because his Kingdom is not of this world. "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 10:39).

The Old Testament is not our model. Christ is our model, because he has fulfilled the Old Testament, and the Old Testament must be read in light of Christ. That is why Our Lord would say, "You have heard it said [in the Old Testament]...but I say to you..."

The Gospel does not call for violent defense of our lives, because that is a concern of this world, whereas the Gospel is concerned with the Eschaton. That is why I do not believe that the Gospel should ever be used to justify violent self-defense. If violent self-defense is going to be justified, then it can only be done so on natural grounds.
[/quote]
I should also point out that martyrdom is a personal choice. A government can't make the same decision--it has to fight to defend its people.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' date='10 November 2009 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1257884217' post='1999726']
The government has control of the army. A couple of Average Joes with Glocks aren't going to be able to overthrow the government.
[/quote]
Governments work on money. Dealing with an armed populace makes tyranny more expensive and thus less likely.

[Winchester]

And Gandhi was succesful because of the time in which he chose to be non-violent (he wasn't peaceful). In centuries past, they'd have mowed him down and gotten on with business. Same with MLK Jr.--the lack of follow through in the modern West makes non-violent protest an option. The spillover makes it an option in other countries, as well. Gandhi wasn't unique, he just had good timing.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Winchester

[Apotheoun]

The Church has always taught that a man has a right, and depending upon the circumstances even a moral obligation, to defend himself against an unjust aggressor.

[JimR-OCDS]

Gandhi's success wasn't so much his wining indecency from Great Britain, but rather, getting the Hindus and Muslims to suspend their violence against each other, while winning independence for India.

Gandhi's success against Great Britain, had to do with the fact that Great Britain had a Christian mindset ingrained into their political psyche. They were concerned about their image to the rest of the civilized world.

Against another oppressor, Gandhi would not have been so successful. All we have to do is look at China and Tiananmen Square or Tibet. China cared less what the world thought about their brutality towards the protesters.


Jim

Edited November 10, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1257885695' post='1999762']
The Church has always taught that a man has a right, and depending upon the circumstances even a moral obligation, to defend himself against an unjust aggressor.
[/quote]


Right, but we're to use violence only when necessary and only to the degree to stop the agression.



Jim

[Varg]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1257886258' post='1999770']
Gandhi's success against Great Britain, had to do with the fact that Great Britain had a Christian mindset ingrained into their political psyche. They were concerned about their image to the rest of the civilized world.
[/quote]Or maybe it's because us British are so very nice?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1257886566' post='1999773']
Right, but we're to use violence only when necessary and only to the degree to stop the agression.[/quote]
Yes, including lethal force if necessary.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1257881921' post='1999679']
'Slappo'



We know their lives and the virtues they exhibited. Not all saints were on the same level spiritually, except, all aligned their wills with God's.





I never said I reached this level of spirituality. I spoke about others who have, like Gandhi.




Please, I never suggested that I'm holier than anyone, especially Joan of Arc.

Remember one thing, she never took up arms, she inspired her country men to fight against their oppressors, who BTW, were enemies of Rome.

Also, when Joan was arrested and imprisoned, she was shown the torture devices that would be used on her, if she didn't recant her statements about the locutions she had been receiving. She became fearful and said she would. However, that night in her cell, she had a dream where the Blessed Mother appeared to her and told her she was wrong to fear the torture devices and that she must stay true. She did, and of course was burned at the stake.






Never heard of him, but I'll check him out.

Hope he isn't just a legend, ala St Christopher.

Jim
[/quote]
The Church never said ST Christopher was a legend.