Catholic Church's stance on gun ownership

[Writer]

I almost pursued a career in law enforcement, but ended-up working in a different capacity within state government. I had let my interest in guns fade away a bit personally, but when someone tried to break our front door down late one night last year, I was giving it some serious thought to it again. As long as you are appropriately licensed and take precautions against unauthorized use or access of your firearms, there’s nothing wrong with it. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their families, and, if anything else happens around here, I’m probably going to go that route again.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Forget about fire extinguishers. People die every day in fires despite fire precaustions.

And people die every day due to criminal violence despite firearm readiness. The point is that those who are better prepared, have a better chance of surviving both situations and the Church teaches that we have a GRAVE duty to prepare for such situations.

Why can’t you answer my question directly. In most countries weapons for self defence are BANNED.

And, it has been pointed out already, that that is AGAINST Official Catholic Church teaching which supports the private ownership and use of firearms for self defense purposes (see Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).

I keep asking you what the alternative is in such countries but you still have not given me a response to that. It all comes back to weapons for you (unless I’m picking you up wrong).
WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE TO WEAPONS?

Recall that when Jesus walked the earth, Israel was under Roman rule and the Jewish were BANNED from owning swords. Jesus knew this. Yet He commanded His followers to go out and purchase a sword even if they had to sell their coat in order to do it. I don’t recall reading that any of Christ’s followers reminding Jesus that they were banned from owning swords and asking Him for “alternatives to weapons”.

Aren’t we taught as Catholics that when the Church speaks, it is Christ speaking to us? If so, I once again refer you to Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144 which supports the private ownership and use of firearms for self defense purposes.

 

[thistle]

And people die every day due to criminal violence despite firearm readiness. The point is that those who are better prepared, have a better chance of surviving both situations and the Church teaches that we have a GRAVE duty to prepare for such situations.

And, it has been pointed out already, that that is AGAINST Official Catholic Church teaching which supports the private ownership and use of firearms for self defense purposes (see Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).

Recall that when Jesus walked the earth, Israel was under Roman rule and the Jewish were BANNED from owning swords. Jesus knew this. Yet He commanded His followers to go out and purchase a sword even if they had to sell their coat in order to do it. I don’t recall reading that any of Christ’s followers reminding Jesus that they were banned from owning swords and asking Him for “alternatives to weapons”.

Aren’t we taught as Catholics that when the Church speaks, it is Christ speaking to us? If so, I once again refer you to Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144 which supports the private ownership and use of firearms for self defense purposes.

You are deliberately misinterpreting Church teaching. The Church does not teach that all Catholics in the world must purchse a gun. Where in the CCC does it state that?
I won’t call you stupid but what you are saying is stupid.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And you are twisting around what I am saying. Where did I say that you HAVE TO own a gun? I said, that according to church teaching, those who do not own a gun or take other steps to properly prepare themselves to deal with threats to their safety, have failed in the duty required of them – which is a sin of omission and since it is considered a GRAVE duty, the sin is a mortal sin of omission.

 

[thistle]

And you are twisting around what I am saying. Where did I say that you HAVE TO own a gun? I said, that according to church teaching, those who do not own a gun or take other steps to properly prepare themselves to deal with threats to their safety, have failed in the duty required of them – which is a sin of omission and since it is considered a GRAVE duty, the sin is a mortal sin of omission.

And several times in this thread I have asked you and the other poster Brendan what are the other steps you have both failed to answer and revert back to the use of weapons.
You now have another chance.
When weapons for self protection are banned under law what in your opinion are “the other steps”??

 

[Sir_Knight]

We’re going around in circles. I point out again that when Jesus commanded His followers to gets swords, the Apostles did NOT tell Jesus that swords were banned under the law for Jews to own.

The Church stands in the place of Jesus. I trust that I do not need to provide references where Jesus pointed out that He and His Church were ONE.

And the official position of the Church (not to be confused with the official teaching of the church – which is related but not the same thing) as stated in the references that I’ll been linking to through this entire thread is that …

• … the right of legitimate defense by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms" …*

So, we have a RIGHT to defense by arms (the right of legitimate defense by means of arms exists). This right (which right? the right to arms) can become a serious duty (so the RIGHT to arms can be a DUTY to arms – under what circumstances?) for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community.

 

[Brendan]

And several times in this thread I have asked you and the other poster Brendan what are the other steps you have both failed to answer and revert back to the use of weapons.
You now have another chance.
When weapons for self protection are banned under law what in your opinion are “the other steps”??

Since the Church says that is may be a Moral duty to be able to defend yourself, and that justifies the private ownership of guns, I would strongly consider civil disobedience and working to change your country’s gun laws to more correspond to the Church’s teachings.

As I mentioned before, when a civil law is set opposed to the Moral law, Catholics have an obligation to obey the moral law first, and to actively work to conform the civil law to correspond with the moral law.

No one (including the Church) states that you MUST own a firearm, only that you MAY if you so choose and your have a moral right to use arms to defend yourself ( see post 8).

Also, Civil self defense law MUST recognize that one has the moral right to use arms in one’s defense, or in the defense of others; and the stopping of an attack may result in the death of the attacker and that there is no moral error on the part of the defender. So civil law must be changed in that regard as well.

So work to change you laws to correspond to Church teachings, and disobey civil law if it is in conflict with Moral Law.

 

[Brendan]

Look at getting a license for a shotgun. Most of my relatives are in Ireland and most have shotguns and\or rifles, so it’s not that hard there at least.

I presume that the UK has similar laws.

In that way, you have your ‘fire extinguisher’, and if it becomes a choice of staying alive or going to jail, that decision is pretty easy.

 

[thistle]

Since the Church says that is may be a Moral duty to be able to defend yourself, and that justifies the private ownership of guns, I would strongly consider civil disobedience and working to change your country’s gun laws to more correspond to the Church’s teachings.
As I mentioned before, when a civil law is set opposed to the Moral law, Catholics have an obligation to obey the moral law first, and to actively work to conform the civil law to correspond with the moral law.

No one (including the Church) states that you MUST own a firearm, only that you MAY if you so choose and your have a moral right to use arms to defend yourself ( see post 8).

Also, Civil self defense law MUST recognize that one has the moral right to use arms in one’s defense, or in the defense of others; and the stopping of an attack may result in the death of the attacker and that there is no moral error on the part of the defender. So civil law must be changed in that regard as well.

So work to change you laws to correspond to Church teachings, and disobey civil law if it is in conflict with Moral Law.

What a stupid comment. The Church most definitely does NOT teach that. You are simply making yourself look foolish. The Church does not say we must own a weapon or we are in mortal sin.

I would like to ask all other posters in this thread. Do you agree with SirKnight and Brendon that all Catholics in the world must own a weapon or they commit a mortal sin by not having a weapon.

 

[Brendan]

What a stupid comment. The Church most definitely does NOT teach that. You are simply making yourself look foolish. The Church does not say we must own a weapon or we are in mortal sin.

Read what I said, and compare it to what the Church has said

First of all, on the Morality of defense with arms.

… the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms"

Note that I did NOT say that you MUST own a firearm, only that

1. We have a Moral RIGHT to defend ourselves via the use of firearms.
2. That right of defense becomes a grave duty when we are responsible for the lives of others, including family.

Do you disagree with what I have posted?

I would like to ask all other posters in this thread. Do you agree with SirKnight and Brendon that all Catholics in the world must own a weapon or they commit a mortal sin by not having a weapon.

Could you please point out exactly where I said that you MUST own a firearm. If you note, I used the word “MAY”

What I said was a requirement was that Catholics work to change any civil laws to comply with the Moral Law as taught by the Church, in this case, that arms may be used to defend oneself.

And that Catholics who chose to violate any civil precepts that are contrary to the moral law are not in error, but rather act in justice.

 

[mvinca]

What a stupid comment. The Church most definitely does NOT teach that. You are simply making yourself look foolish. The Church does not say we must own a weapon or we are in mortal sin.

I would like to ask all other posters in this thread. Do you agree with SirKnight and Brendon that all Catholics in the world must own a weapon or they commit a mortal sin by not having a weapon.

Seeing as I have the ability to read, I know that SirKnight and Brendon are not saying that people must own a weapon. They are saying that laws that prevent you from using a weapon in self defense are unjust. Somehow, in some odd twisted logic, you seem to think that means you MUST own a weapon.

 

[thistle]

Seeing as I have the ability to read, I know that SirKnight and Brendon are not saying that people must own a weapon. They are saying that laws that prevent you from using a weapon in self defense are unjust. Somehow, in some odd twisted logic, you seem to think that means you MUST own a weapon.

In the first place the Church does not teach that laws banning weapons are unjust or that in such countries we should incite civil disobedience to change the laws. Its only Americans who think like that and I’m sure its a minority. The banning of weapons is in fact a moral thing. We should all be striving for a world free from weapons, even if that might be thousands of years from now.

Second, SirKnight and Brendan are certainly at least implying we must own a weapon. I repeatedly asked them what the alternative (“other steps”) to weapons is and they will not answer. They are in essence saying there is no alternative to weapons to protect your family and if you do not take steps to protect your family you are committing a mortal sin. In other words if you do not own a weapon you are committing a mortal sin.
I am still waiting for them, and I give you the same opportunity, to say what the “other steps” are that the Church mentions.

 

[TOP]

Hunting season in WV.

 

[Brendan]

In the first place the Church does not teach that laws banning weapons are unjust or that in such countries we should incite civil disobedience to change the laws. Its only Americans who think like that and I’m sure its a minority. The banning of weapons is in fact a moral thing. We should all be striving for a world free from weapons, even if that might be thousands of years from now…

Could you please justify this statement in light of the Churchs teaching below

… the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms"

If a moral right exists to defense by means of arms for those who are responsible for the family, how exactly is a civil law that bars that right a just law?

We agree that that all Catholics are to work for a day when there is no need for self defense, but that is done by the conversion of all to the Truth, not by the elimination of a moral right. That, of course, is impossible for a Catholic to advocate for.

 

[Sir_Knight]

In the first place the Church does not teach that laws banning weapons are unjust or that in such countries we should incite civil disobedience to change the laws. Its only Americans who think like that and I’m sure its a minority.

You are correct. America is in the MINORITY on this issue. At the 2001 UN International Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons ONLY America and the Vatican came out in SUPPORT of the private ownership and use of firearms by private individuals for self defense purposes. I would rather stand in the minority WITH the Vatican on an issue than stand with the majority against the Vatican on an issue. How about you?

The banning of weapons is in fact a moral thing. We should all be striving for a world free from weapons, even if that might be thousands of years from now.

So you believe that we should live in a society where the young and the strong can dominate the old and the weak like uncivilized animals? Because a weapon, especially a gun, helps to level the playing field. An old man in a wheelchair is place on equal footing with a young gang-banger. A small woman need not fear a large rapist because a gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

As I said before, people who argue for the banning of weapons ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact OPPOSITE of a civilized society.

Second, SirKnight and Brendan are certainly at least implying we must own a weapon. I repeatedly asked them what the alternative (“other steps”) to weapons is and they will not answer. They are in essence saying there is no alternative to weapons to protect your family and if you do not take steps to protect your family you are committing a mortal sin. In other words if you do not own a weapon you are committing a mortal sin.
I am still waiting for them, and I give you the same opportunity, to say what the “other steps” are that the Church mentions.

And I’m waiting for you to show me where in scripture do we see the Apostles tell Jesus that the law forbids them from owning weapons and ask Him for alternatives when He commanded His followers to go out and buy a sword.

What a stupid comment. The Church most definitely does NOT teach that. You are simply making yourself look foolish. The Church does not say we must own a weapon or we are in mortal sin.

I would like to ask all other posters in this thread. Do you agree with SirKnight and Brendon that all Catholics in the world must own a weapon or they commit a mortal sin by not having a weapon.

Let’s look at what the Church official teaches. In Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is OFFICIAL Church teaching and IS binding on Catholics, we see …

*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.”

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.

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.*
*
** … We see that we have not only a right but a duty to self defense if we are responsible for the life of others.*

Now, what is a sin of omission? Isn’t it the failure on our part to do something that is expected or required of us? What is a duty? Isn’t it something that is required or expected of us? Thus, can we not say that if we fail in performing a duty that the Church says that we have, we have committed a sin of omission? And if it involves GRAVE matter, as the CCC tells us that this duty is, and we knowingly fail to perform that duty, have we not committed a mortal sin of omission?

If you disagree with this, then please explain where the reasoning flow is incorrect.

Having said that, we have the conclusion that we have a grave duty to protect ourselves (“one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s”) and failure to do so, would be a sin of omission – a mortal sin of omission.

Now, how are we to protect ourselves? The fact that the Church calls it a GRAVE duty means that we MUST use the BEST means POSSIBLE. If a BETTER means of defense was available to us than what we have employed, then we have failed in performing our duty. Grave duties REQUIRE us to use the best means available to us.

This leads us to the next question of what is the best means of self defense and without question, the best means of personal self defense in most cases will be with a gun.

If anyone disagrees, I want to here of an alternative means of self defense which would be superior in most cases and we can debate that further.

Now, let’s look at what the Church says about self defense with a firearm in Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144 …

*… the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community … *

… Let break it apart piece by piece:

• 
  *]the right of legitimate defense by means of arms exists
  
  We have a RIGHT to defend ourselves via arms.
  
  *]This right
  
  Which right? The right to defense with arms.
  
  *]can become a serious duty
  
  What can be a serious duty? The right to defense with arms CAN BE a serious duty to defense with arms.
  
  Under what conditions does this RIGHT to defense with arms become a serious DUTY to defense with arms?
  
  *]for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community
  
  This RIGHT to defense with arms become a serious DUTY to defense with arms for those responsible for the lives of others and for the common good of the family of community.
  
  *]Thus, a husband, parents, etc.; have a DUTY to defense with arms! That is the Church’s official POSITION on this matter.
  If you disagree, then kindly explain where the error is made in formulating this conclusion, why it is an error and what should be the correct conclusions drawn from THESE Church statements on this matter so that I can be corrected and others can learn what the correct meaning of THESE statements are.
  
  Thank you.

 

[thistle]

You are correct. America is in the MINORITY on this issue. At the 2001 UN International Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons ONLY America and the Vatican came out in SUPPORT of the private ownership and use of firearms by private individuals for self defense purposes. I would rather stand in the minority WITH the Vatican on an issue than stand with the majority against the Vatican on an issue. How about you?

So you believe that we should live in a society where the young and the strong can dominate the old and the weak like uncivilized animals? Because a weapon, especially a gun, helps to level the playing field. An old man in a wheelchair is place on equal footing with a young gang-banger. A small woman need not fear a large rapist because a gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

As I said before, people who argue for the banning of weapons ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact OPPOSITE of a civilized society.

And I’m waiting for you to show me where in scripture do we see the Apostles tell Jesus that the law forbids them from owning weapons and ask Him for alternatives when He commanded His followers to go out and buy a sword.

Let’s look at what the Church official teaches. In Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is OFFICIAL Church teaching and IS binding on Catholics, we see …

*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.”

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.

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.*
*
** … We see that we have not only a right but a duty to self defense if we are responsible for the life of others.*

Now, what is a sin of omission? Isn’t it the failure on our part to do something that is expected or required of us? What is a duty? Isn’t it something that is required or expected of us? Thus, can we not say that if we fail in performing a duty that the Church says that we have, we have committed a sin of omission? And if it involves GRAVE matter, as the CCC tells us that this duty is, and we knowingly fail to perform that duty, have we not committed a mortal sin of omission?

If you disagree with this, then please explain where the reasoning flow is incorrect.

Having said that, we have the conclusion that we have a grave duty to protect ourselves (“one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s”) and failure to do so, would be a sin of omission – a mortal sin of omission.

Now, how are we to protect ourselves? The fact that the Church calls it a GRAVE duty means that we MUST use the BEST means POSSIBLE. If a BETTER means of defense was available to us than what we have employed, then we have failed in performing our duty. Grave duties REQUIRE us to use the best means available to us.

This leads us to the next question of what is the best means of self defense and without question, the best means of personal self defense in most cases will be with a gun.

If anyone disagrees, I want to here of an alternative means of self defense which would be superior in most cases and we can debate that further.

Now, let’s look at what the Church says about self defense with a firearm in Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144 …

*… the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community … *

… Let break it apart piece by piece:

• 
  *]the right of legitimate defense by means of arms exists
  
  We have a RIGHT to defend ourselves via arms.
  
  *]This right
  
  Which right? The right to defense with arms.
  
  *]can become a serious duty
  
  What can be a serious duty? The right to defense with arms CAN BE a serious duty to defense with arms.
  
  Under what conditions does this RIGHT to defense with arms become a serious DUTY to defense with arms?
  
  *]for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community
  
  This RIGHT to defense with arms become a serious DUTY to defense with arms for those responsible for the lives of others and for the common good of the family of community.
  
  *]Thus, a husband, parents, etc.; have a DUTY to defense with arms! That is the Church’s official POSITION on this matter.
  If you disagree, then kindly explain where the error is made in formulating this conclusion, why it is an error and what should be the correct conclusions drawn from THESE Church statements on this matter so that I can be corrected and others can learn what the correct meaning of THESE statements are.
  
  Thank you.

• 
  So I don’t misquote or misunderstand what you are saying please clarify for me in the shortest possible terms. A yes or no would be preferable.
  
  Are you saying that because the Church teaches that we have a duty to defend our family and that in the US you have a right to bear arms and in your opinion the only way to defend a family is by owning weapons (because you are unable to define what the Church means by “other steps”) and anyone therefore who does not own a weapon is in a state of mortal sin.
  Is that what you are telling me?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

In Texas we have this thing called a CHL Concealed Handgun License. I have one and I carry all the time. The only time I don’t carry is during my Bible study group and RCIA. The only reason is because they are done inside a school. Texas law states we cannot carry a firearm in a school. Very dumb law think about Virginia Tech they have a no carry law on campus.

The reason I carry a gun is because carrying a police officer is too heavy.

This just happened to me. I was home on vacation during the week of July 4th. It was about ten in the morning I was outside working on my garage when I notice there are a lot of police cars driving around the neighborhood I’m thinking they must me looking for somebody.

I go inside to get a drink of cold water. In the morning my wife opens all the windows to get fresh air in the house. I notice in the backyard my side gate opens and a guy steps in my yard looking around. You can tell he’s looking for a place to hide. I yell at him and he starts running to my backyard fence and jumps over it. I tell the wife come on we go to the front yard trying wave down a cop. A patrol car goes by don’t see us his windows rolled up his A/C is on.

The police were looking in another part of our neighborhood. To make a long story short there were six patrol cars in my neighborhood the police were less than a minute away from my home and I could not get one. Yes I was on the phone with 911 still it took fifteen minutes for me to get a police officers attention and that was by me yelling at four them standing around trying to figure out where the guy was. They finally did get the guy. I thank God I was home and my wife was not alone that morning.

So you people stating that the police are going to protect your family you’re a day late and a dollar short. What if that guy kicked in my back door the only one to protect my family is ME. I am not going to rely on some local government agency to protect my family. In fact that’s not there job there job is to protect the entire city and they do a great job doing it. They cannot be everywhere at once.

In June the State of Texas executed a man. His crime he and his buddies murdered a man because one of them wanted to get an eye drop tattoo to look good in his gang. These people don’t care about human life.

I’ve said this before on these boards if you live in the United States and you do not own and know the safe use of a firearm to protect your family it’s a sin.

 

[Brendan]

So I don’t misquote or misunderstand what you are saying please clarify for me in the shortest possible terms. A yes or no would be preferable.

Are you saying that because the Church teaches that we have a duty to defend our family and that **in the US you have a right to bear arms **and in your opinion the only way to defend a family is by owning weapons (because you are unable to define what the Church means by “other steps”) and anyone therefore who does not own a weapon is in a state of mortal sin.
Is that what you are telling me?

No.

What the Church’s teaching means is that:

If you are responsible for the lives of others, including family, you have a Moral obligation to defend them from attack via the best means possible in accordance with the moral law.

Do to otherwise is a grave sin (mortality of the sin depends, as always, on three factors, 1. In must be grave matter, 2. You must willing choose to do it 3.) You must be aware that it is sinful)

We can only speak to the gravity matter in this discussion .

Another point you are missing (see highlight above), is that ALL Catholics have the moral right to bear arms. So you have the right to bear arms. That is what the Church has stated.

Yes, you currently have civil laws that repress your rights under the Moral Law.

But what are your obligations when that happens?

What are you, as a Catholic, supposed to do when civil law is in conflict with the moral law? Which are you to support or act on?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Are you saying that because the Church teaches that we have a duty to defend our family and that in the US you have a right to bear arms and in your opinion** the only way to defend a family is by owning weapons** (because you are unable to define what the Church means by “other steps”) and anyone therefore who does not own a weapon is in a state of mortal sin.
Is that what you are telling me?

A GRAVE duty MUST be carried out by the BEST means POSSIBLE. Otherwise, it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. That basic logic.

If I am an EMT and you are dying of a heart attack, I have a duty to get you to medical attention as quickly as possible and must use the best means available to me. If I have access to a helicopter that can get you there in 5 minutes and a horse and buggy that can get you there in 2 hours and I use the horse and buggy and you die along the way, I have failed in getting you to medical attention and I would be in trouble for failing to use the best means available to me to get you to the hopsital as quickly as possible. If you die in the helicopter along the way, I would not be in trouble because I used the best means available to me.

The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm. Those who can protect their family with a firearm but do not do so for whatever reason, are guilty of the sin of omission.

***… (because you are unable to define what the Church means by “other steps”) … ***

It is neither my place nor the Church’s place to"define" what other steps are to be used for defense of self and family. That is left up to the individual based on their particular circumstances.

What the Church does define and what I am saying is that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and our loved ones with the BEST means possible and if we fail to do so, we have committed the sin of omission.

 

[dang71]

this is just a great thread!

In the first place the Church does not teach that laws banning weapons are unjust or that in such countries we should incite civil disobedience to change the laws.

i think the Church says it is just for us to defend ourselves or others, and how WE decide to do that is up to us. i have both a bat next to my bedroom door, and a .38 special under the bed. it would be UNJUST for us to NOT defend ourselves and/or others.

Its only Americans who think like that and I’m sure its a minority.

hating Americans is quite fashionable nowadays, but you Europeans easily forget it was America’s guns that saved Europe from being Nazi, and it has been the presence of American guns that have kept Europe from being under Soviet control. your safety and freedom have come to you by way of AMERICA and our guns.

your welcome.

The banning of weapons is in fact a moral thing. We should all be striving for a world free from weapons, even if that might be thousands of years from now.

so we should ban kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, pipes, boots, rocks, water, tree branches, chairs, frozen legs of lamb, and any other item that has ever been used as a weapon? while we are at it, lets ban hoods and ski masks, because those have been used in crimes also. wait, shouldn’t we also ban hands and feet, and also eyes and thinking minds as well, because all those can be used in crimes.

seriously though, if someone is criminal enough to attack another, or to break into the house of another, they are not really innocent, helpless saps. assault and battery, and home invasion are crimes with serious intent, and add to the mix that most people who involve themselves in these crimes are also involved in drugs, and therefore have quite unpredictable, often violent behavior. to take precautions against these types of individuals is not unjust, it is only common sense. if a person feels they can use only their hands and feet to fend off this type of criminal, then they are free to try it. if a person feels they need a firearm to defend themselves against this type of criminal, they should be free to have that ability, so long as they go about it in a responsible manner.