"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:16).
With the post-John Paul II Church in America split between two rival camps of traditionalist and leftwing Catholics (a.k.a. "Left Cats"), one of the oddest media outlets is Catholic News Agency (CNA).
On one hand, during the Francis era, CNA has been an invaluable resource for Catholics, providing detailed analysis of the infiltration of the Catholic Church in America by George Soros-tier NGOs and Democratic Party operatives.
On the other hand, CNA will regularly publish pieces that sound like a whitewashed and toned-down version of something penned by one of the many Left Cat writers, many of whom are literally funded by George Soros.
In addition to a steady stream of cringe-worthy, "just a few million more" pieces arguing for the right of the entire world to enter the West via illegal and legal immigration, a recent gem on CNA's website is a piece arguing for the classic Democratic Party "middle ground" approach to gun control in which Americans will be slowly stripped of their firearms via a dialectical series of compromises.
In "What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control," CNA's Mary Farrow presents the argument that although the Catholic Church teaches that humans have a right to defend themselves, the Church also teaches that the state has a right to protect the common good by regulating gun ownership.
While such an argument seems perfectly reasonable on the surface, Farrow's piece is a masterpiece of gaslighting worthy of a CNN-tier fake news segment argument for "common sense gun control."
In fact, the lead photo of the piece is of two serious-looking teenage girls, one of whom is holding a sign with a crossed out AR-15 crudely drawn on it and accompanied with the (all caps, of course) words "COMMON SENSE" and "WE NEED GUN REFORM NOW."
The message, of course, is that while our country along the entire West is rapidly becoming a violent, God-less hellscape, it would be only common sense to disarm the American population and leave them at the mercy of criminals who have no concern for gun laws.
Farrow begins her piece with a narrative of the recent El Paso and Dayton shootings along with a body count of those killed and some pleading words from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Luring the reader into assurance that her piece is not going to be a screed arguing for immediately taking away any and all guns from Americans, Farrow presents an argument from the Dominican Fr. Thomas Petri about the right Catholics have for self-defense.
However, with her gun-owning reader relaxed, Farrow then opens up her bag of tricks.
Taking aim at the iconic AR-15 and other high-capacity rifles, Farrow paraphrases Fr. Petri as saying, "A claim that does not seem to be morally or reasonably supported by Church teaching is the supposed right of citizens to protect themselves against their government."
With respect to Fr. Petri, such a claim is, in fact, made by another Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who, in Chapter 7 of De Regno, allows for legitimate resistance against a tyranny, writing in paragraph 49:
If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands
Farrow finally gets to the heart of the matter by quoting Fr. Petri's apparent argument, in the key of the radical Left itself, that the state needs to intervene with increased regulation and monitoring of Americans who own serious weapons:
A semiautomatic weapon is used for firing a lot of bullets very quickly, and what's the reason for that? Well, it's to do maximum damage to multiple targets at one time. So yes, I think Catholic moral principles would dictate that the state does have not only a right but a responsibility to monitor who has such means, and that they're in good mental condition and are able to use them properly.
Farrow stops short of arguing for total gun control but here seems to open the door for or provide tacit approval of the Democratic Party's proposed "red flag" laws, the first step to radical gun confiscation from those who have politically incorrect views.
Like the innumerable pieces produced by CNA cheering on the now rapid death of the West via mass immigration, "What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control" buries its subversive message within a deluge of noble and pious verbiage and a few Teddy Ruxpin-level tear-jerking stories.
Contrary to CNA's arguments, the worst thing imaginable would be to grant a judicial system and law enforcement apparatus under President Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren to disarm and humiliate those guilty of the crime of "wrong think."
Moreover, those at CNA and their pals at the USCCB who think they can appease the power structure ruling our country and much of the world by selling globalist ideas to confused conservative Catholics must realize that they are only useful idiots whose shelf life will eventually wear out and who will someday find themselves red-flagged for their own all too conservative Catholicism.