From Wed. Journal Reader Comments:

joe from south oak park Posted: January 27th, 2014 5:27 AM
issues of religious dogma aside, this also interesting because concealed carry in Illinois came about as the result of a ruling by the 7th circuit court in Moore v. Madigan. One of the plaintiffs in this case is Mary Shepard who, along with two others, were savagely beaten by a man who robbed the church.

joe from south oak park Posted: January 27th, 2014 5:42 PM
It seems a bit odd to remind Fr. McGivern of the catechism, but i’ll ‘take a stab at it’. 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.”

joe from south oak park Posted: January 27th, 2014 5:45 PM
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…

joe from south oak park Posted: January 27th, 2014 5:46 PM
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.

joe from south oak park Posted: January 27th, 2014 5:50 PM
2266 and 2267 deal less with legitimate defense and more with punishment. either way they are worth a read as well. here is a link to the text if anyone wishes to read it for them-self.

Dominick Ahrens
Posted: January 27th, 2014 11:14 PM
As a practicing Catholic I have to ask who “parishoner John Barrett” is to speak for the parish, much less all Catholics? This behavior seems to be predominant in Oak Park. I have taken an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution twice. Why would I be welcome in uniform but not in plain clothes, much less any of the law abiding citizens who have passed background checks, taken classes and paid (hefty) fees to be able to defend themselves when those same people are not the ones causing the calamities in our streets around our country today?

Q from Oak Park Posted: January 27th, 2014 11:30 PM
Dominick Ahrens, then you must be defending the right for all card carrying gun toting people to have the right to carry their heater anywhere they want. But as it is, guns are prohibited in certain places, and there is no reason why St. Edmund’s can not post a no guns sign.