Vatican 'Cardinal Rambo' defends passion for guns

Dear Sisters,
In normal circumstances you are right of course. Although in my country in Europe only the criminals have weapons, one feels a little saver. But we are not in normal circumstances any more. You may not know this, but the leaders of the world are preparing in secret for the reign of the Anti-Christ, as you can understand by reading the Apocalypse. The reign is planned to be a communist facist world tyranny; all people are planned to be controled by means of the rfid-chip (Apocalypse 13:18). Of course people will protest, but in case the civils of the U.S.A. have almost no weapons any more, they can not defend themselves against this luciferian diabolic new world order which is prepared behind the scenes. Probably the recent shoot incidents on schools were planned by the illuminati/freemasons (Obama) to have an occasion to have forbidden the possessions of weapons by civils, in order that when the diabolic New World Order is introduced, there will be no resistance. So what you say, is just what the freemasons want to hear, although in normal circumstances you would be completely right! The man/children who are involved in this shoot incidents on schools etc., and shoot themselves after that, are probably not normal people, but mind controled (trauma based).

God bless this Cardinal for standing-up to the liberal media. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. A matter of fact I think every parish priest in Europe should own a gun now; especially because of the growing animosity the Muslims have against the Catholic church. Would like to see a Muslim try something with this Cardinal, he would get a bullet right between the eyes from a 357 Magnum. Would take his head right off.

...the Catholic Church, which advocates non-violence.

-----------------------------------------
Regarding the morality of self-defense in general, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

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.' (no. 2263)

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 to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. (no. 2264)