Thoughts on the second amendment and other civil rights

Pro-life Catholic Democrats emerge as key in health reform.(ANALYSIS): An article from: National Catholic Reporter
I was recently asked the following question by a friend.   

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1789, the arms we had a right to bear were all single-shot muzzle-loaded weapons. I have no problems with responsible people owning and using guns for sport and self-protection. But if we can keep people with epilepsy or poor vision from driving cars, we should be able to prevent mentally unstable people from buying assault weapons.

My response covers a lot of ground.

      Unfortunately there is no amendment that specifically addresses driving. Unless you think it is covered under the 9th amendment, and you could make a good case for driving as a right. There are specific reasons that the second amendment is written as it is without the caveat that as long as they res of man. Meaning that rights are not bestowed by the government but they are inalienable from the individual and it is the duty of the government to protect these rights. In fact under the natural rights of man if a government fails to protect thmain "single shot muzzle loaded." Jefferson was a great student of the enlightenment from which we get the natural rights of individuals in a systemic fashion and does not respond to petitions for redress of these breaches, it ceases to exist in other words by definition it is no longer "government."

     Our Bill of rights and the Deceleration of Independence are the first attempt to codify the natural rights of man. This is what makes the US different from other countries. This is the very thing that our brave service men and women fight to defend and die for.   So, when I was asked by my congressman Adam Schiff if I supported restrictions on the purchase of certain types of weapons and ammunition, except in cases of felons and the mentally ill, I told him no the 2nd amendment prohibits this. I told him that our Representatives would have to find another way to deal with the violence against political figures that has once again surfaced in this country. I made two suggestions
      1- indict Sara Palin she crossed the line when putting political figures in cross hairs etc. She threatened the lives of                           
          legitimate representatives of our democracy, and this is a federal offense. Had you or I built such a site you can
          bet the feds would be crawling up our you know what’s, and rightly so. Why should Sara Palin get away with a
          federal offense.

2- I suggested that more money be spent on helping the mentally ill. I even pointed out that there are many 
    wandering around homeless right here in his own district.

    So, the second amendment is written the way it is for a reason, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. So, absent a move to remove the second amendment which would take 3/4s of the states or a Constitutional Convention (which would be utter chaos) they have to come up with another way. 

     I hesitate to mention this, but with the recent scientific advances i.e, DNA evidence and the subsequent research in executions particularly in IL, it has been found that 1/3 of the people being executed were innocent. One has to wonder if this constitutes a systematic abridgment of the right to life?  But it is certainly true that capital punishment should be eliminated.

     Then we get into the area of abortion. If as science tells us now that when sperm meets egg there is a completely unique human being produced one that is more than the sum total of the parents DNA, one has to question the  denial of the civil rights of the conceiveds’ right to life through “lawful” abortion.  I am not one of those who believe that pro-choicers are murders, having been pro-choice myself I do understand the argument that one can be personally against abortion and still believe that the right to chose belongs to the woman. However scientific information and a careful reading of the roe v. wade majority decision has convinced me that civil rights should be extended to the conceived who are in fact human beings and thus covered by the Bill of rights just as the mother's rights are covered.  I believe only a well reasoned response will convince others that human life begins at conception, and that thus the conceived are covered by the bill of rights.

     America has a long history of civil rights struggles, extending civil  rights for African-Americans, and for women being two. In both cases the argument of viability was put forth.  For example black slaves were not viable without their owners Women were not considered viable without a man to take care of them.  So any concern about the viability of the conceived is easily dispensed with.  History teaches us that the US is sometimes slow in extending civil rights to some of our brothers and sisters.   I do believe that the time has come for a non-violent movement such as that started by MLK to extend civil rights to the conceived.   However, this must be a reasoned and well-coordinated response modeled after Dr. King’s civil rights movement.  I do not believe that we are going to change anybody’s mind by forcibly shoving pictures of bloody fetuses in their faces.   It is this fanatical aspect of the pro-life movement that has caused it to stall and not make any real progress.  We can change the politicians’ minds and policies with reasoned, coordinated, non-violent efforts just as Dr. King did.  Forcing people to look at depictions of bloody dismembered fetuses is violent.   We must stand together as reasonable people not fanatics, and as surrogates for the conceived, as they cannot stand up for themselves.

     As an individual Catholic our doctrine is clear.   What it means is that in any election when presented with a pro-choice and a pro-life candidate, I must vote for the pro-life candidate no matter if I disagree with that candidate on every other issue, thus I voted for John McCain in the last Presidential election. In the last gubernatorial race since both candidates were pro-choice I was free to vote for Jerry Brown. I am praying that Bishop Soto in Sacramento will call him in for discussions on this.

     Jerry Brown is Catholic or he calls himself one.  One cannot be both pro-choice and Catholic. The bishops, although slow to act, as they were taught in the Gospels, have had enough. This is the only issue upon which we as Catholics are told in no uncertain terms how to vote.  When presented with a pro-life and a pro-choice candidate we must vote for the pro-life candidate and we cannot cop-out and simply not vote. The Bishops have already told us how to vote on this issue, the next step is the excommunication of those politicians who call themselves Catholic and yet pursue pro-choice policies. And I would not be surprised if we were to see some mass excommunications of Democratic politicians who like to think they are Catholic yet pursue pro-choice policies.  One day soon I would anticipate seeing Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Brown excommunicated from the Church. Technically they are already not Catholic the formality of excommunication by their respective bishops is the next step.

     Catholic doctrine on capital punishment is also clear. The Church says it is wrong and unnecessary.  Catholic doctrine on homosexuality is also clear. Homosexuality is a disorder.  The APA is divided on this, and the current DSM IV indicates homosexuality is only disorder if the suffer believes it to be so. This is of course a cop-out and there are large numbers of psychologists who disagree with this. As Catholics we are to treat homosexuals with patient loving kindness and never with hate or judgment. However we are required to speak the truth. This of course puts us at odds with current policy of the Democratic party, which is the government sanctioning of homosexuality. If the government sanctions homosexuality then those who suffer from the disorder will be discouraged from seeking the help they need and deserve. 

     However, neither the government sanction of homosexuality nor capital punishment are salient. That is Church Doctrine does not tell us how to vote on these issues. This does not mean that doctrine is unclear. What it does mean is that abortion is salient and such an egregious moral wrong that we are required to fight it by every legal means at our disposal. In fact, as I explained above when presented with two candidates one who is pro-life and pro-capital punishment and the other pro-choice and against capital punishment we MUST vote for and support the pro-life candidate. Pro-life Catholic Democrats emerge as key in health reform.(ANALYSIS): An article from: National Catholic Reporter

     I might also like to point out that no pro-life president has used the DOJ to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thus I believe that Republicans use the issue or give it lip service in order to get our votes. This is an unfortunate situation, as I believe we Catholics fully 25% of the electorate are being used. However, I will continue to vote with regard to the abortion issue as described above.

Are we trading Justice for Tolerance?

I was recently asked the following question

When Jesus rescued the woman taken in adultery (John 8), did he tell us not to judge whether adultery is wrong?

As for me I have enough trouble with the plank in my own eye. Jesus said, is there no on left to condemn you? nor do I condemn you, go and sin no more. In these few words, there is a great deal to mediate on. First, only God can condemn (period). This is why as Catholics holders an guardians and evangelizers of the truth, while we canonize those we know to be in heaven, we do not say that anyone is in hell -- for we don't know. God's ways are not our ways.

Our initial judgment is based on the state of our soul when we die, how far God's mercy extends at this point is not for us to say, except we are to avoid both sin and judgment. God saved St. Dismas from the cross. While it is true that the grace sufficient for a death bed conversion is extremely rare, there are occasions, as with St. Dismas. According to his grandson who is a priest in Los Angeles, John Wayne the actor received this grace.

We are to be kind and loving even to our enemies. This means we avoid gossip even discussing the sin of another with other people is a sin on us.

As Mother Teresa said, "If I judge people, I have no time to love them"?
As human beings we are not qualified to judge others. We do not know their hearts, we judge by what we think we know -- behvior. We are to love and be kind even to those who exhibit sinful behavior.

So I am not completely certain what your point is. You seem to be looking for a loophole where we can be free to condemn those we believe to be sinners. This is not Catholic doctrine, otherwise we would have a process similar to canonization, but in the reverse whereby we say so and so we know to be in hell. This determination is reserved to God alone. It is not our role. We ask God to forgive our sins as we forgive the sins of others. Our attitude as stated by Christ in matt 25:31-46 should be one of loving kindness to all.
Jesus forgave the adultery of this woman in the same way we are forgiven in confession and told her as we are told to sin no more. Yet if you are anything like me, we return again and again to confession. Sometimes struggling to overcome the same sin.

As Catholics with the fullness of the truth and the responsibility to evangelize we know that adultery is wrong, and we do not engage in it. We advise others to avoid it. If we know that someone has committed adultery do we tell them what we know? Well yes. Our approach must be one of loving kindness though and not from a place of judgment and condemnation. If they are receptive, then great we can offer our help. If their hearts are hardened, we certainly do not agree with them that what they have done is ok, but nor do we continually point out their flaws or their missing the mark, which is the definition of sin. These people we pray for, even after death.

I know personally of a woman who admittedly had affairs and multiple abortions. I could not change her, as she got involved with an organization called Christ unity, which I believe to be satanic. She ended up having cancer and opted to go to Oregon for an assisted suicide. I continue to pray for her soul, and ask for God's mercy. I cannot judge her one way or the other, but only provide hopeful prayer.

In a sense your question is silly. Of course adultery is wrong and every Catholic knows that, but so is judging others. As far as condemning the sin and not the sinner, I have to laugh when I hear this fundie slogan. For without the grace that comes from regularly taking the sacraments; it is impossible to love the sinner, while condemning the sin.
I personally have been counseled by fundie pastors and know this to be true. Without the grace of the sacraments they simply cannot separate the sinner from the sin, and thus, end up doing more harm then good, by condemning the sinner.

Now does any of what I have said mean we are to support the government sanction of divorce or homosexuality. No. of course not. Both our wrong. We are to treat people in each group with loving kindness. We as sinners are in no position to stone anyone. Hence, the Catholic doctrine on life, which includes doctrine against capital punishment. We are fallible, as are our institutions. Recent DNA evidence has indicated a systemic practice in the US of executing the innocent. Fully 1/3 of those executed in this country are later proved to be innocent of their conviction by DNA evidence. This makes the state guilty of murder.

The government sanction of homosexuality by making it legal for homosexuals to marry those of the same sex is clearly wrong, and as Catholics we cannot support it. It is based on dubious evidence which includes a perceived genetic predisposition and the fact that the APA since 1974 has said that homosexuality is only a disorder, if the practitioner of the homosexual activity is disturbed by his or her activity. This point of view is imprecise scientifically, and has provided the homosexual community with license, and denied them help for their disorder. The government has based on this action by the APA and in response to hate toward homosexuals. Responded by extending rights to practicing homosexuals. This sanction by both the APA and the government has stiflied further research and given license to disordered behavior while denying those with the disorder the help that they need. The government and the APA are trading tolerance for justice. We cannot have one without the other. When I use the word justice, I use it in it’s platonic sense of an appropriately reasoned response to the facts. The APA should not have changed it’s definition of homosexuality as a disorder simply because there is not enough information. A genetic predisposition does not support the view that homosexuality is natural. And if a homosexual is not disturbed by the behavior Psychologists should be asking the question why are they not disturbed? The answer to that question probably lies in the genetic predisposition. But this should give psychologists a new approach to treatment not a reason to sanction the behavior. The wrong thinking and poor science involved in the APA decisions, the homosexual movement, government sanctioning of homosexual behavior, and the feelings of repugnance that many have when we contemplate homosexual behavior does not give us license to stone homosexuals. Unfortunately many who call themselves followers of Christ have resorted to hateful and violent behavior as a consequence of their feelings. Many have treated practicing homosexuals in a manner that Jesus taught us was wrong when he put a stop to the stoning of the adulteress woman.

We also know that abortion is murder. Life as born out by the scientific evidence we now have begins at conception, but does this give us license to stone abortionists or those who have had an abortion? No. We are to treat them with loving kindness, while working to convince those who would consider abortion not to go through with it, and at the same time working to overturn the unjust court decision and laws that permit abortion. The law is unjust in that the unborn are conceived with civil rights. The first of which being the right to life. This is the most salient issue of our time. And one that puts the Church clearly at the head of a progressive and just civil rights movement.

It is in this areas of judgment and condemnation of both abortionists and those who have had abortions that the pro-life movement has gotten off base and become fanatical. This is not doctrinal nor is it Christ like. We do have a right and a duty to speak out and act in accordance with doctrine, but that doctrine includes loving all including our enemies. This is a hard teaching of our Lord, but he clearly commanded us to love even our enemies. We must also remember that the measure we use to judge others will be the measure that is used to judge us. Therefore how can I live a life where I am free to judge other sinners. I cannot. The fanaticism of the pro-life movement has in fact caused many to harden their hearts. This is not good evangelism. Justice – an appropriately reasoned response based on the facts is good evangelism. The Church has learned of many errors and it’s members have throughout history made mistakes. These mistakes have sometimes gotten to the point of scandal. But let the tares grow among the wheat for they will be eliminated at harvest time, if not by before by our bishops and the magistirium before the harvest. Loving kindness is the way of the Lord, and he exemplified this in the story of the adulteress found to be in the very act of adultery.

A deeper learning and understanding of Catholic doctrine brings us the dual realization of doctrinal perfection and our own inadequacies as individual members.
So, yes if you are perfect in your judgment then cast the first stone.
As for me and my house we will follow the Lord.

http://www.stmichaelgodsknight.com

copyright 2010 Fred Celio