| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lover of Monasticism
Average Member
USA
919 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2006 : 12:02:35
|
I don't know. My parish priest told me about it, and he's an extremely well-educated man so I took his word for it. If I come accross it I'll let you know. (You could look around for it yourself in the meantime.)
Kyrie Iesou Christe eleison me. |
 |
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 12:06:16
|
quote:
You said earlier, "Priests (and those intending to be priests) are canonically forbidden to be hunters and fishermen." Please site for me the source of this canon. Thank you.
Actually I've been told the same thing. My priest told me this so I don't really have a source. The idea is that no one who sheds blood is able to administer communion. I believe that fishing is a gray area though. It comes down to what a priests particular Bishop will allow. In the stictest communities I think this is followed though. I guess it's been in practice for some time and before grocery stores priests would have others hunt and butcher their food for them. My guess is people would be pretty happy to do this if the goal is to keep the Priest pure. |
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 12:21:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lover of Monasticism
Theology aside, how can you guys be okay with everyone carrying around concealed weapons?
Actually, I'm fine with resricting concealed carry to non-felons who complete the basic training and have no history of mental disease. Pretty much the requirements of the states with "shall issue" CCW.
quote:
Originally posted by Lover of Monasticism
Unless you're a police officer, carrying around a gun doesn't seem very nice, does it?
Actually, with the modern alloy-frame firearms and a holster with a proper fit, it can be quite comfortable to carry. I guess you could say that's nice.
quote:
Originally posted by Lover of Monasticism
It implies that you intend to you is if things get nasty. And if your excuse is that it's for protection, just what have you done to make so many enemies?
We need to be able to defend ourselves from the evil people that we don't know about.
And everyone, let's please skip the sort of nonsensical hypothetical "shoot-or-don't-shoot" scenarios that usually plague discussions such as this. If you want to learn about when you are legally justified to use lethal force to defend your life or the lives of others (notice I didn't say property), I'd advise you to enroll in a basic pistol defense course similar to the one's my wife and I have attended. The cost is quite low and a few hours is all that is needed (depending on the level of comlexity of the course). |
|
|
|
Lover of Monasticism
Average Member
USA
919 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 15:16:44
|
By "carrying around a pistol is not very nice," I didn't mean comfort-wise, I meant morally.
Also, I meant to say "...you intend to use it if..." I'll be sure to edit those typos.
Kyrie Iesou Christe eleison me. |
|
|
|
Reader
Moderator
USA
118 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 15:39:20
|
Dear Parascheva and LOM,
I think I do understand the thinking that would be behind such a canon. I also understand how canons are interpreted and applied by individual bishops. Nor would I object to quoting from one's reliable priest. I do get suspicious when people quote canons over and over on various subjects without ever quoting the source. I for one would like to read some of these canons myself, if only to understand the context, details, and exceptions that may have been forgotten by even the most reliable priest.
Also, I object to people (nobody in this case) who use canons to bully other people into believing peripheral issues exactly as they do. It reminds me of my Protestant days when Christians "older in the Lord" went around squashing anyone with a legitimate question or problem with the faith simply by quoting Scripture.
And speaking of the Scripture, at least those people could quote you chapter and verse, even if their interpretation was bogus. Can you imagine a Protestant saying, "well, I heard from my pastor...but I don't actually know where it says so in the Scripture." I fear that so many of us quote canons that we've never read or understood in context, that others outside Orthodoxy look and think, "I never want to be part of so much nit-picking."
Finally, here’s a mental exercise. When Christ made a meal for his disciples after His resurrection (Jn. 21), do you think he killed the fish first?
Funnin’
Steve
|
|
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 16:04:05
|
I think we are gettin hung up on two different things. It's not like we have to speculate on the present day practice of the Church. As far as I'm aware it is the practice at least in my jurisdiction that Priests can't hunt or kill anyone for any reason and still administer communion. If this practice came from a cannon or not I don't know. I do know that bishops may make exceptions for certian circumstances such as an auto accident that is not the fault of the priest etc.
If we agree that this should or should not be the practice is a whole different idea. Personally I don't have a problem with the fact that my Priest has never killed anyone, and doesn't hunt. |
|
|
|
Reader
Moderator
USA
118 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 17:19:10
|
Well, maybe I'm getting off topic for this section. I wouldn't have written on the subject at all except for LOM's interpretation of a "canon". That's all I got hung up on.
And of course, I'm glad that our priests haven't killed anyone, and personally glad they don't hunt. But Parascheva, to address the point of my previous post, would you really mind if they went fishin'? |
|
|
|
Lover of Monasticism
Average Member
USA
919 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 20:57:20
|
I may have been mistaken about the fishing part, but I know for a fact that priests cannot be hunters.
As for Christ's miracle, I had always kind of thought that He created the fish then and there, already dead, gutted and cooked. But then again, I'm probably mistaken. Even if He did kill them, I think of it this way: He is God, and as God He alone has the right to take lives, as we have seen Him do throughout the Old Testament and still continues to do today. Priests, on the other hand, are not God but are representatives of Christ on earth. As such, they must be as Christlike as humanly possible, and this is why the Church has such strict guidelines for retaining a priest's purity. St. John Chrysostom says that just like an eye, which waters profusely when it gets the smallest iota of dust or dirt in it, a priest must be that pure.
I recently read a wonderful article on interpreting canons. I'll post the link once I find it.
Kyrie Iesou Christe eleison me. |
|
|
|
Reader
Moderator
USA
118 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 21:47:39
|
LOM,
Thanks for admitting that you may be wrong about the fishing part. Maybe we'll find out someday, if we can find the canon. As for your other comments, I've got a lot to say, specifically that you may be missing something about the natures of Christ.
But instead of commenting here, I'll think about starting another string about canons. Give me a few days. Looking forward to the link.
|
|
|
|
Lover of Monasticism
Average Member
USA
919 Posts |
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 23:46:29
|
| Personally, no I don't care if they go fishing (or dance and swim in public for that matter either)... but It's not up to me or popular opinion. The Bishops seem to have pretty clear ideas about who they will ordain and under what circumstances exceptions can be made. |
Edited by - parascheva1014 on 07/25/2006 23:47:15 |
|
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 00:00:20
|
Okay so back to the guns topic... what disturbs me about people carrying guns is the fact that people feel that unsafe in their own neighborhoods. If everyone carries guns does that really make the neighborhood more safe? I don't really think so. what we really need to address is the moral decay of our society and the fact that I can't walk my baby girl in my neighborhood alone for fear of the four sex offenders on my street. I don't even live in the ghetto. Actually there is almost no place in MD you can live and not have this kind of thing. I don't think I'd feel any safer for my baby if I carried a gun. What would I do with one anyway? Have a shoot out in the street and hope my daughter doesn't get caught in the middle? Or maybe hope I don't get grabbed from behind and the gun is taken? It's all so complicated but it seems to me that there should be better solutions intelligent people can come up with than all of us carrying guns. I think an Orthodox christian has to weigh this out with thier own Priest. There is no common Church teaching on carrying a weapon. Only if you happen to kill someone, even in self defense it still has to be confessed.
Also what happens if you kill someone accidentally because you make a mistake or something? Is it worth the risk?
Maybe it all comes down to a need for control in a social world that is growing ever more dangerous. Isn't control really and illusion anyway. At the end of the day don't we really believe and trust in God or what? So do I really needa gun? |
Edited by - parascheva1014 on 07/26/2006 00:02:27 |
|
|
|
Athanasios Palamas
Starting Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 02:35:50
|
1) Yes, I feel unsafe in my neighborhood and just about everywhere else. The fear is real. Criminals don't descriminate about what areas they commit crimes in. Good areas or bad, have their risks.
2) Yes, if law abiding citizens carry guns it does make the neighboorhood safer! Without a doubt. There is science to prove this. If you were in the presence of an armed cop would you feel safer? Why would you feel any less safe from a law abiding citizen who jumped through the legal hoops to legally do it. You put too much faith on the governments "ordination" of cops. They are just people. Criminals will carry guns or other weapons no matter what so laws don't have much effect on them. Do you think that if someone is going to commit murder, rape bank robbery that they will care about the extra charge of carrying a gun? I don't think thay care.
3) If you don't think you'd feel safer carrying a gun with your baby in an urban area, at night for example, when a few shady characters attepmt to acost you then you are not a rational person. I've been in a few situations in a large major urban city at night accompanied by a female friend and other times in different situations on my own and I know I felt VASTLY safer knowing that I was armed, but that's just me. I have also found myself in the middle of two shootings. I wasn't involved, and didn't get involved but I was there. You feel defensless. And if you are wondering the first time it was the evening in a decent area, buying pizza. The next thing I knew people started shooting MGs right outside. People were shot. I was too young to be armed. The second time was actually on my street. A few guys (3) mugged a guy and shot him. I could hear him pleading for his life and the gunshots. They threw him in a car and then he jumped out and then they put him back in all infront of my eyes. The victim lived. I was armed but young and I regret to this day that I didn't go defend him. I would have wanted someone to help me. The point I'm making is that I wasn't in very bad areas. Besides, what ifyou do live in a bad area? Shouldn't you be able to defend yourself? Not everyone lives in "good" areas.
If you don't "get it" you probably never will until your in that situation.
4)Yes, you would shootout in the street to save your daughters life or your own. Or is that not worth it? That's your choice but I know what I would do. I think in that situation you would defend yourself, but that is just speculation.
5) If they come up behind you, you are probably doomed anyway, gun or no gun. With everything comes a risk. To me the burden of carrying the gun it worth taking that small risk that an unarmed perp will come up behind me and get my gun. I say unarmed because if he is already armed it doesn't matter anyway. If the gun in concealed and carried properly this is highly unlikely.
6) If someone is accidentally killed because I make a mistake I feel that is in God's hand. I have faith in myself that my actions will be responsible. Besides, if a perp is attacking me isn't most of the burden on him even if I'm the one who makes the mistake? If he never attacked me/my family I would have never made this hypothetical mistake. Do you ask police this same question? Is it worth the risk for them to carry a gun because an innocent person could get hurt?Again you are falling into the trap of looking at cops as superheros rather than just regular citizens that decided to take that job.
7) As for your last question you only really need a gun, when you really need a gun if that makes sense. I trust in God. That said He has given me the means to have the gun, the ability to realize a need for it, and the legal ability to do so. I feel it is my duty to protect people around me and to a lesser extent myself.
Each person has their own opinion and I respect everyones as long as they are rational and factual. Carrying a gun is not for everyone. |
Edited by - Athanasios Palamas on 07/26/2006 02:55:25 |
|
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 07:20:20
|
Let me put it this way. I personally know six men who carry guns. They say all of it is for their protection. I believe them. I only feel safer with two of them. The other four are looking for a fight just by their attitudes. They put themselves more readily in harms way and they have no formal training. I'd feel a lot better if people where required to have more formal training in the use of a hand gun before they are allowed to carry one around. The idea that a person carrying a gun may well enflame a situation until it is even more out of control is very real. An untrained person with a gun may well result in even more injuries.
I suppose if someone where trying to take my daughter I'd use a gun, but I don't put myself in situations where that is likely to happen (I also wouldn't feel the need to get involved in someone else dispute if she where with me, no matter how much defending they might need) so I feel I'm reducing my risk as much as carrying a gun would increase my saftey. Besides I can't shoot the broad side of a barn, so I'm the last person you want to have a gun.
I'm not saying no one should be allowed to carry a gun but the criteria for who is and isn't should include a persons ability to have good/quick judgement in high stress situations, some training on avoiding the accidental shooting of innocent bystanders, and their ability to actually hit a target. Cops and military personel have that. The average person doesn't. Think about all the people you know personally... aren't there some people that even though they could legally carry a gun, if they did you'd be concerned for everyone around them for one reason or another? What about people with no impulse control? We have a whole culture full of those people.
|
Edited by - parascheva1014 on 07/26/2006 07:24:48 |
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 07:36:41
|
That's part of the problem with the state of Maryland not being a "shall issue" state, the people who have concealed permits are the ones with the right connections. No specific training is required.
Having trained, law-abiding citizens carry concealed weapons only represents a threat to criminals, witness the fact that no innocent civilian has been shot by a law-abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon since the "shall issue" laws went into effect some 15 years ago.
Does anyone recall a single instance of a "shoot out" occuring with a CCW holder? No, so let's drop that suggestion.
Virtually all instances of a CCW holder fending off a crime come to a conclusion with the citizen announcing they are armed and without firing a shot.
LOM, there is nothing wrong with arming oneself. Even Christ noted the need for swords. I certainly don't recall him telling Peter not to carry one. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Carrying of guns/weapons?
